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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the response_mode=plain beginner variant and the structured nature of the return (claims, breaking conditions, bear case). It stops short of noting data freshness or auth, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource definition, then use cases, then exclusions and args. Dense but every clause earns its place; the 'Args: entity; view' tail is slightly redundant given the full schema.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well (thesis, claims, bear case, catalysts, review/story modes). Combined with complete annotations and 100% param coverage, an agent has nearly everything needed; only freshness/refresh semantics are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents entity, view, reading_level and response_mode fully. The description only reinforces response_mode=plain and lists 'entity; view', adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('standing investment case for a stock') and enumerates exactly what it returns: the thesis, testable claims with breaking conditions, bear case, catalysts, and whether it still holds. It also distinguishes itself from siblings via 'Not for: valuation → answer', so an agent can route 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 concrete trigger phrases ('what's the bull case for X', 'what would break X's thesis', 'is X's story holding up') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool named ('valuation → answer'). When-to-use, when-not, and the fallback are all present.

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