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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns people's names, profit-sharing ratios, amounts, and the total of ratios. It also explains why the total is returned (Datavrn warns only when at least two rows carry a ratio), which goes beyond the structured annotation.

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?

The description is compact yet complete, with the core purpose in the first sentence and all additional sentences carrying actionable context (usage before save, return contents, and ratio-total behavior). No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents and why the total is included. It also ties into the save sibling. Minor gaps like pagination behavior are already covered by the schema's limit/offset descriptions, so the overall context is strong.

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 100% and each parameter has a thorough schema description (e.g., account_kind maps 'capital' to Note 3a and 'current' to Note 3b). The tool description reinforces the Note 3a/3b framing but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool reads the partner or owner capital schedule (Note 3a and Note 3b), with a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It differentiates from siblings such as save_partner_capital by explicitly framing itself as the read-before-write companion.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Call it before save_partner_capital so you can show your user what is on file and what your change would do.' It explains why reading first is necessary because the save replaces the whole section, and even discusses the Datavrn total-ratio warning behavior.

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