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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description is not required to restate it. It instead adds genuinely useful behavioral context: nulls mean missing or withheld and never zero, date params filter observation dates, pagination continues via next_offset, and each value carries its unit, source path, date, and restrictions. That is real added value beyond structured fields.

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or redundancy. The telegraphic style omits some needed content but never wastes words; a slightly more structured form (e.g., separating filter rules from output guarantees) would help.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry safety. What is missing for a 6-param, 7-dataset query tool is any coverage of entity/limit/offset behavior, pagination limits, and how dataset values should be chosen.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it only partly does. It clarifies start_date/end_date semantics (observation dates, empty = no filter) but says nothing about entity, limit, offset, or how the dataset enum values relate to use cases; "next_offset" refers to a response field, not the offset parameter.

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?

"Query cited rows without large raw documents" gives a clear verb (query) and resource (cited evidence rows), and even states the tradeoff versus heavier raw document retrieval. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from its many siblings (financial_evidence_agent_query, financial_evidence_review, financial_evidence_packet), so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 only implied: the phrase "without large raw documents" suggests this is the lightweight path when full documents aren't needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the eight siblings. The null/date semantics are interpretive guidance rather than selection guidance.

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