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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data provenance (latest public Form 5500-SF filing), the band value set, and an explicit scope disclaimer ('Not an audit or compliance determination').

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and payload, then the provenance and scope caveat. Every clause earns its place: the band enumeration, the filing source, and the compliance disclaimer all affect interpretation.

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 carries the burden and does so by naming all return fields and the data source. Minor gaps remain — what happens when the plan has no filing, or whether results are cached — but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents plan_id format and its origin in find_401k_plan. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource — a preview of the ClearMind 401(k) Scorecard for a single plan — and enumerates the returned components (0-100 score, band, headline, story). It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., find_401k_plan), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The description scopes usage to 'one plan' and points to the Scorecard page for the full breakdown, which implies this is the lightweight variant. However, it never states when to prefer this over the full Scorecard or how a plan_id is obtained, leaving routing to inference.

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