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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the 'morning briefing' usage pattern, the report's scope, and pointing to a full accuracy archive at /intelligence/accuracy-archive for deeper metrics. This provides behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 earning its place: the first states the purpose and contents, the second gives usage guidance, and the third points to supplementary resources. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of fluff.

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 simple read-only report with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the report contains, when to call it, and where to find more detailed accuracy metrics, fully equipping the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'window_hours' already described in the schema ('Lookback window in hours (default 24, max 48)'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('daily intelligence report summarizing liquidation market activity'). It enumerates the report's contents (competitor count, positions, funnel metrics, top candidate) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the 'morning briefing' 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call it once per session to understand market state before executing.' This contextualizes the tool within a workflow and implies it should be used before other execution tools, offering clear usage direction without needing to name alternatives.

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