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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context about the content (restatements, period, rationale) and a behavioral caveat (corrections are not market moves). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or the effect of the limit parameter, but this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The leading noun phrase 'Restatements of published numbers' is immediately informative, and the second sentence earns its place as a meaningful caveat. It is a model of concise, front-loaded writing.

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-optional-parameter read-only tool, the description gives a reasonable high-level sense of the returned content. However, with no output schema, details about the response shape, ordering, and how the limit parameter affects the result are absent. The description is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the exact return structure and pagination behavior.

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 only parameter, limit, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it. This leaves the agent to infer that limit caps the number of returned revisions, with no information about maximum values, default behavior beyond the schema default, or how it affects results. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the resource (restatements of published metric numbers) and the core question it answers: what changed, over which period, and why. The caveat 'A correction is not a market move' adds useful thematic framing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similarly named sibling get_asset_revisions, relying on the tool name to carry that distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_metric_timeseries or get_asset_revisions. The phrase 'A correction is not a market move' implicitly suggests it should not be used for market-direction signals, but there is no clear statement of intended use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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