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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses nontrivial behavior: unentitled lists return only the first 5 rows plus counts by type (locked.count, locked.by_type) and never rows, contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and every answer reports what it withheld in entitlement/locked. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and group semantics are front-loaded, and each mode is defined in tight clauses. The entitlement paragraph is long and somewhat dense, but every sentence carries non-redundant information, so it stays proportionate to a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned (events, change, borrowers, per-type counts) and how entitlement truncates results. The main residual gap is the limit/max-50 pagination behavior, which is left to the schema for a result-set tool.

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 71%, and the description adds real meaning for group and sort by explaining what each mode computes and returns (comparison vs series vs borrower list). It also confirms event_types defaults to all four. It does not clarify limit, since, or period behavior beyond the schema, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource: credit stress on the BDC tape, enumerated over four named event types (NON_ACCRUAL_PLACED, RETURNED_TO_ACCRUAL, PIK_ADDED, PIK_INCREASED) and their sources. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_private_credit_changes for individual dated events, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 gives explicit conditional usage: group='bdc' with sort='change' answers 'which BDCs increased non-accruals last quarter'; group='period' answers 'is non-accrual rising'; group='borrower' lists the borrowers behind the events. It also names the alternative (search_private_credit_changes) for a different need, leaving nothing to inference.

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