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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds value by disclosing behavioral traits: swing-horizon boards are 'measurement-only, never badged tradeable' while proven-gate tradeable badges appear on per-signal-type performance. It also adds 'Measured, not advice,' clarifying the nature of the data. This enriches the annotation context without contradicting it.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with a clear label and then presenting arguments in a pipe-separated format. It is slightly long, but every sentence conveys necessary context (defaults, behavioral caveats, data source). It earns its length and remains scannable.

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's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what is returned (proof board, per-signal-type performance, badges, swing boards), how to invoke it (parameter combinations and defaults), and important caveats (measurement-only, not advice). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so by enumerating allowed values for asset_class (stock|index|metal|commodity) and horizon ('7d'|'14d'|'30d'), explaining their meaning (e.g., same as get_asset_class_proof, swing-horizon boards), and specifying the default when both are omitted. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 this tool provides the full public forward-return proof board, with a specific verb-resource pairing ('get' the proof board). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'richer than get_performance' and describing the per-signal-type performance and tradeable badges, making its unique purpose evident.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool versus get_performance ('richer than...'), and explains the parameter choices (asset_class or horizon) and the default behavior when both are omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like get_asset_class_proof except for parameter compatibility, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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