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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an authentication requirement (xlw_ token), that scoring is re-run against today's lists (so output is live, not cached), and that the call carries no cost. It stops short of describing result size or pagination behavior.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource, then the contents, then the requirement and cost. The parenthetical signup URL and the trailing 'Free.' are short and useful, though the clause list is packed enough to be slightly hard to scan.

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 explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely (totals by vendor and rule, prohibited-use and review lines, ledger joins). The main gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter and any hint about result volume.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving its meaning (line cap? pagination?) unknown. The token is described in the description, but that only repeats the schema's own xlw_ note.

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 names a specific artifact — the exposure report for a private Exposure Ledger workspace — and enumerates its contents (re-scored vendor payment/PO lines, totals by vendor and rule, prohibited-use lines, ledger join). That clearly separates it from siblings like exposure_summary or exposure_awards, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It states the prerequisite (a workspace token beginning xlw_) and that the call is free, which implies the situation in which to use it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling exposure tools for non-workspace queries.

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