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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds context about the content returned (pack types, operations, scope), which goes beyond the annotation. The description provides a clear picture of what the tool reveals without side effects.

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 lists the exact contents of the overview. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It is appropriately detailed for a capabilities overview tool and complements the structured metadata.

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 input schema already documents the sole parameter (low_tokens) with full coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 returns a structured overview of multiple specific domains (EDGAR valuation packs, financial arithmetic, SEC calculations, scope). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific calculations (e.g., compute_sec_cagr) by being the overview/summary 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 implies usage when one needs a broad overview of capabilities. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but context with siblings makes it clear. Slightly below perfect due to lacking explicit exclusions.

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