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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the read-only annotations: correction-pending records have statements withheld, unentitled list results are truncated to five rows plus locked counts, contact values and decision-maker names are suppressed, and every response reports withheld data in entitlement and locked. These are precisely the operational details an agent needs before calling.

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 dense but front-loads the core purpose and modes before explaining access restrictions. Most sentences carry necessary behavioral detail. The final promotional sentence about the free trial is not essential to correct tool invocation and slightly dilutes conciseness.

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 complex entitlement model and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to set expectations: it describes what list and record responses include, what is withheld, and how withholding is reported. Safety annotations already cover the read-only profile, so no critical behavioral context 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents kind, query, and record_id. The description adds useful meaning for record_id by explaining that it returns the evidence manifest with claim bases and sources. It does not add semantics for kind, query, or limit beyond the schema, and limit is entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 specific resource: DFX's own published research records and investigations, including the exact fields each finding carries. It also distinguishes list mode from record_id manifest mode. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as research or search_documents, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It clearly explains the two usage modes: listing records versus retrieving a specific record's evidence manifest via record_id. It also describes how access limits affect results. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when-not to use this tool.

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