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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping word 'private', and says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or default ordering, so its added behavioral value is modest.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence blends filtering options into one clause-heavy list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. For a 7-parameter list tool with zero schema coverage, however, the description leaves pagination parameters, 'kind' values, and any ordering/limits undocumented, so it is only partially complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and no enums, the description carries the full burden and does partially compensate: it names kind, portfolio, date and status filters, and even enumerates status-like values (ready/running/attention, legacy open/finished). It omits the page and page_size parameters entirely and gives no accepted values for kind, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 clear verb ('Read') and defines the resource in domain terms ('private calculation groups and independent operations'), which clarifies what an 'analysis' actually is. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_analysis or list_analysis_portfolios, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 only implied: listing/filtering analyses is the obvious scenario, and the enumerated filter dimensions hint at common lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternative tools such as get_analysis for retrieval of a single record.

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