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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it says the tool is 'Free', discloses its dependency on the latest access audit, explains the output structure and evidence semantics, and warns to state credits before running anything priced over 5.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and there is no obvious filler. But the description is a single dense, semicolon-heavy sentence packed with undefined terms, which makes it harder to parse than its length suggests.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back. It lists fields and evidence types, but key terms such as 'module', 'credits', and the founder-stage logic remain cryptic, so an agent gets only a partial mental model of the response.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no input surface to document. The description instead explains the returned fields and the meaning of 'evidence', which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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?

States that the tool returns 'the ranked queue for this week' built from the latest access audit, which gives a recognizable resource and scope. However, it relies on dense jargon ('module', 'credits', 'founder's stage') and never distinguishes itself from siblings like today or visibility.

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?

Provides process guidance ('Work it top down') and implies a prerequisite by saying the queue is built only from the latest access audit. It does not state when to call this instead of alternatives such as today or access, nor does it list exclusions.

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