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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the free tier truncates to the top 10 rows, full=true requires a Tensorust bearer key, and every row carries a market_priced flag regardless of private_only. It does not describe any per-call rate limits or the remaining row fields, which keeps it at 4.

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?

The cohort definition and 'largest federal exposure first' are front-loaded where they matter most, and the dense parenthetical packs the qualifying signals efficiently. The filter/sort/tier sentences are heavy but each clause carries distinct information, with minor cost in readability from the run-on clause structure.

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?

For a six-parameter read-only screen with no output schema, the description covers the qualifying conditions, the full filter and sort vocabulary, the row-level market_priced flag, and critically the free-tier row cap and the key requirement for full results. An agent can determine both whether to call it and how to call it correctly without further lookup.

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 only 33% (only full and private_only are documented), so the description carries most of the load. It supplies all seven signal values that the schema leaves as an undescribed free-form string, the three sort options, the meaning of agency text and state filtering, and expands private_only beyond the schema's wording. This is meaningful compensation for the coverage gap.

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 defines the exact cohort precisely: 'BDC-financed federal contractors with a stress signal,' then enumerates the three qualifying conditions (first-lien mark below 90% of par, a 5+ point quarterly cut including Q3 2026, or two managers 10+ points apart) and the default ordering (largest federal exposure first). This is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming a sibling such as contractor_credit, credit_q3_cuts, or lender_marks to contrast against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the filter vocabulary and the enumerated signal values, and the description does explain the free-vs-paid split, but it never says when an agent should pick this tool over the related screens in the sibling list. There is no 'use this when...' framing or exclusion guidance, so the agent must infer the selection rule from the cohort definition.

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