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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior beyond them, namely the 90-day publication lag and the guarantee that nothing is recomputed. The data provenance URL is a useful extra. It does not discuss pagination or response shape, keeping it 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the delay constraint is stated early. The parenthetical URL reference is slightly awkward in phrasing but not wasteful.

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 simple read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential oddity an agent must know: the 90-day lag and published-only scope. Little is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default, min, and max. The description adds no semantics for it, 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 (get) and resource (published end-of-day model states and allocation changes), and identifies the key scope qualifier: 90-day delay. It implicitly distinguishes from get_current_state via that delay, though it never names the sibling outright.

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 phrase 'published states only, nothing re-computed' hints at when this is appropriate (historical, as-published data), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_current_state or get_verification. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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