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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it returns NET movement (not gross) and explains the rationale with concrete examples, and it discloses the verdict-flip flag as a special signal. This goes beyond a simple 'returns changes' and gives the agent insight into the tool's logic and output semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('What actually MOVED') and each sentence adds value. It includes a vivid metaphor and examples that clarify the net-movement logic, but it is slightly verbose. Still, it is well-structured and not padded with irrelevant 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (net movement, verdict flip) and the main use case. It does not detail the exact return structure or pagination, but it likely suffices for an agent to call it correctly. The 'limit' parameter remains ambiguous, but overall the description is fairly complete.

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 67% (days and companies documented, limit not). The description adds meaning for 'companies' by mentioning 'on a list of companies you name or across the whole record', which explains the omit behavior. However, it does not explain 'days' or 'limit' beyond what the schema provides (days has a default, limit undefined). It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('MOVED', 'Returns NET movement', 'flags') and a clear resource (changes on named companies or the whole record). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on movement and net change, with a clear user story (book of accounts, morning check). Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unmistakable.

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 a clear usage context: to find which companies changed and whether anyone is ramping. It describes the exact question it answers ('which of mine changed, and is anyone suddenly ramping?'), giving a concrete scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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