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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds significant context: the ledger is 'ranked by impact', contains data in paise with an explicit instruction to 'convert to ₹', and includes unique fields like an 'audit hash chain'. This helps the agent understand the tool's output semantics beyond the schema.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('CFO-grade potential-sales-loss ledger') followed by specific details. No filler or redundant phrases. It efficiently conveys the key data points, units conversion, and ranking in a compact form.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what data is included, the conversion instruction, and the ranking. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it (covered in dimension 2) but is otherwise complete given the schema and annotations. The existence of many qradar siblings with no differentiation means a bit more context would have made it a 5.

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%, so parameters like limit, sortBy, dateRange, and platforms are fully documented. The description adds almost nothing about parameters; 'Ranked by impact' hints at a sort order consistent with the default sortBy, but that information is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 identifies this as a 'potential-sales-loss (PSL) ledger' with specific contents: 'each out-of-stock window with lost units and lost revenue', 'velocity basis, price/MRP, and an audit hash chain'. This goes beyond just naming the tool and distinguishes it from siblings like get_psl_movers or get_qradar_overview through the audit hash chain and CFO-grade qualifier.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'CFO-grade' phrasing implies a financial analysis context, but the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tool comparisons. It is unclear whether this should be preferred over get_psl_movers or get_qradar_overview in specific scenarios.

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