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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the bar is low; the description still adds the licence caveat ('this does not verify a licence') and the permission requirement for supplied data, which an agent could not infer from annotations. It omits practical limits such as the 100,000-position cap and any indication of compute cost.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the output scope before the mode and permission rules. No filler, though the second sentence packs three separate conditions into one clause chain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the key gating behavior (rights_confirmed, synthetic fallback) is covered. For a tool with a large nested request object at 0% schema description coverage, more detail on modes and required data shape would be expected.

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 full burden and only partially compensates: it explains the null-request default (synthetic example) and the role of rights_confirmed. It does not explain the request's data_mode enum values, nav, as_of, currency formatting, source, or the per-position fields.

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 concretely what is computed: gross and net exposure, leverage against NAV, and concentration, scoped to signed linear positions in a single base currency. The scope qualifiers (linear, one currency) meaningfully separate it from factor or derivatives exposure siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear branch: omit the request to run the public synthetic energy example, or supply data and set rights_confirmed=true with permission. It does not state when to prefer this over risk_factor_exposure or risk_exposure_profile, but the data-mode guidance is actionable.

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