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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it is cut off at 'using live...' and never explains what the returned thresholds/denominators mean, whether they are versioned or dated, or how often the published standards change.

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 text ends mid-sentence ('using live...'), which is a structural defect, and the long screening sentence is off-topic for a catalog tool — it consumes most of the budget while the actual deliverable (the four standards and their thresholds) is only asserted, not described.

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?

No output schema exists and no parameters exist, so the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what it gets back. It names the four standards (AAOIFI, DJIM, S&P, MSCI) but never states whether the response includes threshold values, calculation denominators, source citations, or effective dates — and the truncation leaves the reader without a complete picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema and description cannot conflict. Baseline 4 for a 0-parameter tool.

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 opening fragment ('The four standards, their denominators and thresholds') matches the title and names the resource, but the bulk of the text describes *screening a US-listed company* against those standards — which is what the sibling `mizan_screen_company` does, not what a parameterless `list_standards` tool does. An agent reading this could not reliably distinguish this catalog tool from the screening tools, so the purpose is muddled rather than specific.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus `mizan_screen_company`, `mizan_screen_portfolio`, or `halalornot_screen_stock`. The screening narrative actually points the agent toward a different tool, so the description supplies no routing guidance at all.

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