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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: a crossing only counts as a genuine call if the thesis predates the filing, and records are dated before the event. It does not describe return format or limits, but the read-only annotation lowers that burden.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero fluff. The core definition is front-loaded, the genuine-call nuance earns its place, and the parameter hints are appended without redundancy.

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?

The description is good for a simple read-only tool, but there are gaps: no output schema exists, and the description doesn't state what the response looks like, how to format entity, or what reading_level controls. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It mentions 'Args: entity' and hints that response_mode=plain is for beginners, but it does not explain reading_level, the meaning of entity, or the available response_mode values beyond the enum 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'dated track record on a company' and defines exactly what counts as a record ('each time a filing crossed or held its thesis's break condition'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_thesis and what_changed.

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?

Explicitly gives use cases: 'when the user asks: has OptimistFi been right on X; did X's thesis break.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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