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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the score is a z-scored composite of two stress indicators, has history to 1988, includes acceleration/percentile/confidence, updates quarterly, and leads eviction filings by about two months. This materially enriches agent understanding without contradicting 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences pack the core return value, composition, use cases, and cadence with no filler. The only minor hiccup is a long second sentence, but it 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?

With no output schema, the description names all key return fields and explains both data history and update cadence. The parameter behavior is fully covered in the schema, so no gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 single optional 'days' parameter is fully described in the input schema (return history series vs snapshot, Gold tier requirement), and the tool description doesn't repeat it. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter insight is needed.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') with a defined 0-100 score and lists constituent indicators, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools. Including output field names further clarifies exactly what the tool provides.

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 explicitly enumerates trigger scenarios ('consumer credit stress, delinquency trends, or eviction risk') and operational use cases ('collections staffing, bad-debt provisioning, rental-portfolio exposure'). It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the positive triggers are very clear.

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