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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by mentioning the 30-day delay, the source, and the 'nothing re-computed' aspect, which are not in the annotations. However, it doesn't go into detail about potential rate limits or response size, but given annotations, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and delay, followed by the source and behavior. Every element adds value, from the delay to the read-only nature. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete. It mentions the delay, the source, and the scope. An agent has enough to call it correctly without needing an output schema.

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?

The schema already documents the `days` parameter with constraints and a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 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 provides published end-of-day model states and allocation changes with a 30-day delay, and it explicitly mentions the source URL. This differentiates it from siblings that likely provide current state or definitions. The verb 'get' and resource 'public record' are specific.

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 states that it is read-only and that it shows published states only, which implies it is not for current or re-computed data. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or provide direct contrasts, so an agent might still need to infer when to choose this over get_current_state. Some guidance is given but not exhaustive.

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