Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is redundant. What does add value is the disclosure of the data boundary (issuances only after July 4, 2025), the fields returned, and the important edge case that the result is empty for non-C corporations — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the identity of the resource, followed by the contents and then the non-C-corp caveat. The field enumeration is long but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to open the output schema for; only the trailing 'Read-only' is pure redundancy against the annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A read-only single-parameter getter with an output schema present: the description covers the data domain, temporal scope, the empty-result condition, and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing, and return-shape detail is correctly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and only one parameter (companyId, a UUID wrapper) exists, so the schema already does the documentation work. The description only implies company scoping via 'a company that is not a C corporation' and does not clarify whether the identifier is the company UUID or something else — baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource and its domain framing: 'The QSBS (Section 1202) log: every common or preferred stock issuance after July 4, 2025 with its holder, date, shares, the company's gross assets at issuance...'. A specific verb (retrieving a log), a precise record set, and the enumerations make it unmistakable which data this returns and how it differs from generic cap-table reads.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is an implicit usage boundary — 'Empty for a company that is not a C corporation' tells the caller when this tool will yield nothing, which is useful for deciding whether to call it. However, no sibling alternative is named (e.g., cap_table_get_list_cap_table_securities) and there is no explicit statement of when this log is the right choice versus those.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.