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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the credit cost model (1 per call, +10 per scored row for full detail) and the caveat that scores signal 'worth a closer look', not verified demand. That disclaimer meaningfully shapes how an agent should interpret results. It omits pagination behavior and result-set sizing, so it falls short of a 5.

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: what it lists, then the cost model, then the critical interpretive caveat. The most decision-relevant facts (cost and score meaning) are front-loaded with no filler.

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 13 optional parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things structured fields cannot: the credit cost model and the semantics of scores. It leaves out pagination guidance and how filters combine, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.

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 coverage is 69%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds meaning only for 'detail' (clarifying it costs 1 credit per call vs 10 per scored row) and implicitly for score-related params via the 'worth a closer look' note; filters like q, verdict, class, source, and cursor get nothing beyond the schema.

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 ('List the exNiche gap ledger') plus its scoping ('with filters'), which is enough to distinguish this list tool from get_gap. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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 gives practical guidance on the detail=summary vs detail=full tradeoff and its credit cost, which implicitly steers the agent's choice. It never says when to prefer this listing over get_gap, check_demand, or get_dossier, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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