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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (audit, grading, proration) but omits details like result format, pagination, or whether all tickers are included. Acceptable for a zero-parameter tool but lacks depth.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output characteristics. Front-loaded with key action ('audit past signals') and ends with specific grading. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It explains what the tool does and the grade logic. However, it could specify the return type or when the tool is applicable (e.g., requires historical data). Still, it's largely sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 it audits past signals by comparing projected vs actual returns with specific grades (AHEAD/TRACKING/BEHIND). The verb 'audit' and resource 'past signals' are specific, and the grading detail distinguishes it from generic data retrieval tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., get_panel_grade or list_reports). The description implies use for auditing signal performance but doesn't outline exclusions or alternative use cases.

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