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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, but the description adds real operational context: exactly one GET to a third-party API (latency/cost implication), and the important exception that withheld_not_live performs no upstream fetch at all. It also explains why results are non-idempotent (a live re-read at call time). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure modes on the upstream call, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the reported fields, then the verdict vocabulary. The long enum list is dense but earns its place because the verdict values carry decision-relevant meaning. Slightly overpacked for a single paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the verdict semantics an agent needs to interpret results, plus the no-fetch edge case. With 2 well-documented params and full annotation coverage, nothing essential 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 both parameters are documented with examples and a cross-reference to get_network, so the description has little left to add. "One of our values" plus the symbol/metric pairing in the schema is sufficient; no extra syntax or constraint detail appears in the description itself.

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: re-reads the upstream API behind a stored value and reports the matching JSONPath, relative difference, and a verdict. The enumerated verdicts (exact, within_1pct, no_matching_field, withheld_not_live, etc.) make the output shape concrete and distinguish it from siblings like verify_footprint or get_metric_history.

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?

"Use it to check a figure before relying on it" gives a clear triggering context, and the withholding/not-checkable verdicts implicitly scope when the tool can and cannot help. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to use get_metric_history instead), so no explicit exclusion or sibling routing.

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