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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: returned costs are research estimates, not executable quotes, order placement, or guaranteed fills, and the tool has no account or execution authority. It also states that venue coverage, observation clocks, quote-currency units, source URL, and content hash are preserved.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core comparison action and scope appear first, followed by preserved metadata and important limitations. Every sentence contributes relevant information without repetition.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. The description covers the one parameter, behavioral limitations, and preserved metadata sufficiently, though sibling differentiation and a fuller explanation of what 'exit evidence' means are still 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single sizes_usd parameter. It compensates well by explaining that values are one to four USD notionals ranging from 0.01 to 1000000 with at most two decimal places, though it does not mention the parameter name or its default value.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: comparing indicative BTC exit evidence for one to four USD notionals. It distinguishes the tool's focus on exit comparisons from broader evidence workflows, but it does not explicitly contrast it with named sibling tools such as financial_evidence_query or financial_evidence_review.

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 through the phrase 'Compare indicative BTC exit evidence' and the notionals range, making it reasonably clear this is a comparison tool. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative instructions.

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