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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, but omits other behavioral traits: it does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal.

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 very concise—two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds a valuable detail about result fields. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, omitting parameter and usage context.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify output structure beyond two fields, filtering capabilities, default behaviors, pagination, or any constraints. It fails to address the complexity of the tool.

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 description coverage is only 17% (only issuerCode has a description), yet the tool description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose of query, status, category, amountMin, or limit. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which may be insufficient.

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 searches the current state of subsidy programs with a specific verb and resource. It mentions result fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like subsidy_watch_get or subsidy_watch_recent_changes, though the names imply distinct purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., subsidy_watch_get for single records, subsidy_watch_recent_changes for updates). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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