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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior: read-only and cached for up to an hour, requires auth token, and returns setup steps if unauth'd. It also lists the output fields, going beyond annotation coverage. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with purpose, then delivers metrics, filters, alternatives, and access details in a logical order. Every sentence contributes: the data-source reference, use case, output fields, and exclusion alternatives all earn their place. No 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 filtered ranking tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies all parameters, output fields, auth requirements, caching behavior, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description restates some parameter meanings (e.g., volume as sum of amount-range midpoints) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a clear verb ('ranked') and resource ('Members of Congress'), enumerates the ranking metrics (trade count, volume, average size, disclosure speed), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the data source and providing a canonical use case. It also lists specific parameters (chamber, party filters), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: "Use it for 'who trades the most in Congress' style questions." Then contrasts with siblings: "For returns against the S&P 500 use members_vs_market, and for late filing use stock_act_compliance." Also covers access prerequisites (token) and behavior without it, giving full usage context.

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