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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost model (one reserved analysis credit, charged only for a completed calculable report), what is free (polling, saved report explanations), and a concurrency limit (one active analysis per customer). Annotations already declare non-readOnly and idempotent; the description adds the billing and lifecycle behavior an agent cannot infer.

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 action and cost in the first clause, then layers prerequisites and limits. Sentences are tight, though 'prechecked valuation' is unexplained jargon that a new agent must infer from sibling names.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the cost/concurrency behavior is well covered. However, for a five-parameter mutation that consumes a credit, the near-total absence of parameter semantics and of named prerequisite tools leaves real gaps.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies request_id reuse on retry and alludes to 'inputs' generally, but never explains symbol, as_of, plan, or security_id, leaving four parameters with no meaning beyond their names.

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 and resource: start a prechecked valuation. The qualifier 'prechecked' implies a dependency on a prior precheck step, which helps separate it from research_precheck and research_get_report, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives clear preconditions ('Missing or unconfirmed inputs must be resolved first') and retry guidance ('Reuse request_id and inputs on retry'). It stops short of naming the concrete alternatives (research_precheck, research_apply_inputs) an agent should call to resolve those gaps.

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