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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'nothing is changed.' It adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: results are the holder's own arithmetic, must be reported as the holder's model, and MarketPing publishes no recommendations or targets.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and outputs. The compliance sentence about not presenting output as MarketPing's view or a target is valuable for correct agent behavior, though it adds some length beyond the core mechanics.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers what output to expect, the prerequisite of a linked account, the idempotent behavior, and the important attribution caveat. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'model', with a description ('Model slug from list_models'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds model-type details but does not provide additional parameter syntax or restrictions beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recompute') with a clear resource ('one of the account holder's saved models') and states the outputs: value per share, bridge, and projected years. It also names model types (DCF, excess return, sum of parts), distinguishing this from sibling tools like run_screener or list_models.

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 gives clear context: it applies to saved models, requires a linked account, and changes nothing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use the tool, but the resource and output scope make the intended use obvious.

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