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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: it runs against the sealed engine, uses fixed synthetic jittered L2 snapshots, is rate-limited to 3/hour per IP, and returns per-regime statistics plus a representative pair. No contradiction with annotations.

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 is well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, Use when, Do not use when, Cost, Returns) and a front-loaded summary. However, there is some redundancy: 'Free' appears both in the first sentence and in the Cost section, and the Purpose section partially restates the opening paragraph.

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 zero-parameter demo tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, when not to use it, alternatives, cost, rate limits, behavior, and detailed output structure, leaving no significant gaps for a first-time caller.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explicitly stating 'Zero arguments' and explaining that the input is a fixed synthetic representative pair, not a market feed, which clarifies why no parameters are needed and what the tool actually consumes.

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 opens with 'Runs a curated demonstration of Kirk on a trading example,' which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this demo from siblings by naming kirk_score_book and kirk_score_book_batch as the tools for scoring real data, and the trading focus separates it from kirk_demo_uav.

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?

The 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections give explicit guidance: first-time callers exploring Kirk should use this, while those scoring their own data should use alternatives. It also mentions the rate limit and zero cost, providing concrete usage constraints.

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