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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description agrees without contradiction. It adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that delivery flags can mean part of the reported answer is driven by supply, not merit, and by stating that it never shows confidence that does doesn't actually exist. This goes beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation alone provides.

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 most important idea is front-loaded with one phrase: 'Results read at the ANGLE level.' Then the description describes what fields to expect and the space-scoping caveat. Some of the phrasing is inventive but non-essential, so it is not maximally concise, yet every sentence carries real purpose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the return composition and scoping behavior. It leaves minor gaps about pagination and whether empty results are possible, but for a read-only query tool the current level of detail is sufficient for a knowledgeable agent to recognize and call it correctly.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description mostly reinforces the space_id override behavior already described in the schema. Neither it substantially adds new parameter-level meaning, nor does it need to.

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 returns angle-level results and enumerates exactly what is included: decision state, P(best), expected monthly loss, delivery flags, last state transition, and estimator provenance. This is specific about the resource and what it does. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_angle or list_angles, so it does not fully earn 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?

The description implies this is the right tool when you need angle-level read values, and it gives clear context about scoping to the active Space or overriding space_id for a single call. However, it never states when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to prefer in which situation. That key decision remains unstated, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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