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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: a plan-gated entitlement and that calling while signed out triggers a sign-in flow. That is real context the annotations cannot convey, though error and pagination behavior remain unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and payload contents, followed by entitlement and auth behavior in short, additive sentences. Slightly dense enumerations but no wasted clauses.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields. Combined with entitlement and auth notes, it is sufficient, with only error handling left implicit.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents provider_slug as slug or UUID. The description only reinforces the 'one provider' scoping, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full breakdown of one provider's current ACI Risk Indicator') and enumerates the exact contents returned: per-criterion values, weights, weighted contributions, confidence, hard caps, stress classification. This implicitly separates it from get_risk_score, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('one provider', 'full breakdown') and the access prerequisite is stated (Professional plan and above), but it never says when to choose this over get_risk_score or compare_providers.

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