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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are seeded/deterministic and rights_confirmed is only an attestation, not a licence check. It doesn't describe cost, runtime, or failure behavior for large portfolios/scenario counts.

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?

Three short sentences with purpose front-loaded and caveats after; no filler. The first sentence is dense but informative, and the permission caveat is placed with the relevant parameter guidance.

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 complex tool with a nested request object and an output schema already documenting returns, the description supplies the key calling prerequisites: optional request, synthetic default, and the rights attestation. It could still explain the relationship between data_mode and rights_confirmed more explicitly.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies that request is optional (default synthetic run) and what rights_confirmed means legally, but leaves the nested obligor fields, data_mode, confidence, horizon_days, and scenarios entirely to the schema's titles and constraints.

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 precise technique and output ('one-factor Gaussian copula Monte Carlo credit VaR and ES for a finite portfolio'), which implicitly separates it from sibling models such as risk_credit_asrf. It lacks an explicit contrast to a named sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete conditional: omit the request to run the shipped synthetic example, or supply data and set rights_confirmed=true. What's missing is guidance on choosing between this and other credit-risk tools, but the invocation conditions are stated clearly.

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