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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the proven-gate 'tradeable' badges, that horizon boards are 'measurement-only, never badged tradeable', and the 'Measured, not advice' framing.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the '[RECEIPTS]' tag and core noun come first, followed by differentiation, args, and default. The run-on dashes and parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse, but nearly every clause carries routing or semantic value.

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?

With no output schema, the description does describe return content (per-signal-type measured performance, tradeable badges, swing boards) and notes data equivalence to REST /proof. Adequate for a two-optional-arg read tool, though return format/shape is described thematically rather than structurally.

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 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, listing asset_class values (stock|index|metal|commodity|fx), horizon values ('7d'|'14d'|'30d'), and the omit-both default behavior. It stops short of explaining what the badge/horizon difference means per result, but compensates well for the empty schema.

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+resource ('the full public forward-return proof board') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings, explicitly calling itself richer than get_performance and the same as get_asset_class_proof. An agent can place it relative to nearby tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: select by asset_class OR horizon, and omit both for the default 24h crypto board. It also names the alternative (get_performance) and the equivalent REST/site endpoints, so selection conditions are unambiguous.

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