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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about the default summary contents and how the register behaves with or without a section.

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 front-loaded with the main action and then efficiently explains the two part options. It is dense but not wasteful, though a bulleted structure would make the part distinctions even easier to scan.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, and the description nonetheless supplies the key content distinctions an agent needs. For a two-parameter sample-retrieval tool, nothing important 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by naming specific summary contents such as ten-year figures and the MR Index, and by describing the fields returned for a register section, including condition, action, timing, cost and cost basis.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: reads the sample Moyne Ross Capital Strategy and explains that identifying details are changed. It clearly distinguishes this sample strategy content from sibling tools such as get_paper and get_technical_page.

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 use case: read the sample to see what such a strategy contains. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is sufficiently clear that an agent can select it for sample strategy content.

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