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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: a 200-entity limit, LEI vs. name resolution, and the portfolio-level composite nature. No contradiction with annotations. The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the scope and limits of the operation.

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 description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence states the action and limit, second lists outputs, third gives canonical usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with the key verb and scope. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description covers purpose, constraints (200 entities), and usage context (pre-settlement compliance). The list of return values is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. No gaps remain for the intended use case.

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% with helpful descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'LEIs to score (fastest — no name resolution)'). The tool description adds the constraint of 'up to 200 entities' and the portfolio-level context, which is not in the schema. This adds meaning beyond the schema, raising the score from baseline 3 to 4.

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 clearly states the tool scores an entire counterparty portfolio up to 200 entities by LEI or name. It lists specific return values (composite scores, tier distribution, fee surcharge impact, etc.). The sibling tools include esg.lookup, esg.score, esg.batch, esg.trend, and esg.watch, and this description distinguishes itself by being a portfolio-level aggregate call, not a single-entity or trending tool.

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?

The description explicitly says 'The canonical pre-settlement compliance check for treasury systems and TMS integrations,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also implies a portfolio need (vs. single entity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for single-entity or trend analysis, so some guidance is missing.

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