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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the reports belong to the bound actor and the tool cannot link reports to a case study, clarifying an important boundary.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action, report types, and filters appear first, followed by a one-sentence behavioral caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and filter dimensions but omits limit behavior and linkedOnly specifics. The 'scope and summary' phrase gives some return intuition, but an agent would likely need to inspect the schema further to use all parameters confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps type, symbol, and linked case study filters in words, but does not explicitly explain limit or linkedOnly semantics, nor any defaults or constraints. It compensates partially, not fully.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find the bound actor's saved analysis reports' and enumerates the report types (alerts-vs-fills, backtesting-vs-alerts). It also differentiates the tool from a linking action by explicitly stating the agent cannot link reports to a case study.

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?

It states the intended context: read-only discovery so the agent can surface reports for the USER to attach. It also gives an exclusion by saying the agent cannot link reports itself. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the usage context is clear.

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