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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses the calculation: fee, conversion in and out at size, hedge carry, local fund benchmark, and verdict. It also distinguishes free landed yields from the paid-key working, though it leaves data freshness, hedge assumptions, and output format unspecified.

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?

There are only two sentences and no obvious filler, but the first is a dense noun pile with a nine-ticker list and a colon. It is not front-loaded with an action verb, and 'the working with a paid key' is cryptic.

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 complex comparison tool with no output schema, it explains the comparison dimensions, local benchmark, one-line verdict, and access tier. It still omits the return structure and data assumptions, but the core decision-relevant context is covered.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description alludes to investor currency and amount ('at their size') but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema, and horizonMonths is unmentioned.

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 names the exact asset class and coverage universe (tokenised Treasury and money funds, with tickers) and the output form (ranked comparison, local-money-fund benchmark, one-line verdict). It is clearly a comparison tool, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'compare' and does not name a sibling alternative.

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 a clear scenario: an investor wants landed, hedged yields after fees in their own currency, with free headline yields and fuller workings behind a paid key. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as swapeazi_landed_cost.

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