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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses the price and payment rail, the exact PASS predicate (coherence >= 0.6, >= 2 agreeing paths spanning >= 2 families), abstention semantics ('they never vote' and are named in output), the Jev review behavior when unconfigured, and the shadow/non-executing posture. These are behavior facts an agent could not derive from readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=true.

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 price and the purpose, then the four families, then the verdict rule. Dense em-dash stacking makes some clauses hard to parse, but no sentence is filler.

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 return value and it does so thoroughly: the verdict token, the gate criteria, the abstained-path list, the Jev status field semantics, and decision_eligible. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little: it establishes that paths are anchored to an earnings print and that the gate is pre-earnings, but the fallback-to-Finnhub-calendar detail lives in the schema itself rather than the description. Modestly above baseline.

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+resource ('pre-earnings coherence gate' computing a fleet coherence verdict from four named paths) and defines exactly what the tool returns: PASS or DENY. The decision vocabulary and the four data families make it unmistakable what this tool does.

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 clear invocation context: it is a paid x402 gate (0.25 RLUSD), it is SHADOW with decision_eligible=false, and it executes nothing. However, it never says when to prefer it over the closely named siblings coherence_gate_review, coherence_jev_verdict, or coherence_jev_verdict-style review, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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