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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses returned fields, oldest-first trend ordering, the determinate-flag denominator, NULL withholding under 90% coverage or parse misread, and the need to read coverage_state before flagged_pct.

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 core signal and keeps every clause substantive, but it is a dense single paragraph with several parenthetical caveats. It is efficient for the complexity, though not ideally structured for quick scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes responsibility for return values and does so: it names {summary, ticker, latest, trend}, explains trend order, and clarifies the critical flagged_pct/coverage_state semantics. For a two-parameter read-only tool, the description is 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 100%, so the schema already documents ticker and quarters. The description repeats the default/cap and ticker examples but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 signal: BDC non-accrual credit deterioration, defined as share of debt fair value on non-accrual plus trailing-quarter trend. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on non-accrual credit quality and explicitly pairs with ol_bdc_borrower_dispersion and ol_bdc_top_borrowers.

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?

Implies usage as a BDC credit-quality check and notes related sibling tools, but does not state when to choose this tool versus the alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is contextual rather than explicit routing.

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