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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description adds meaningful behavioral disclosure: it is display-only, does not produce an institution score or tier, preserves unknown data as cannot_see, and states that Seiche context never enters regime/transmission. These are concrete limitations and edge-case behaviors an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by adding scope, boundary, or behavior. It avoids redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple board tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers what the board answers, what is excluded, how missing data is handled, and the only parameter's effect.

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 schema already documents the single full parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'full:true adds methods,' but the schema description is actually more specific about what full returns. Thus the description adds minimal new parameter meaning, and the schema carries the burden.

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 states a precise question ('is US funding stress reaching nonfinancial firms?'), identifies the content areas (CP, bank credit lines, real-economy confirmation), and explicitly distinguishes this board from household_credit_board. It also clarifies what it is not ('Display-only; no institution score or tier'), leaving no ambiguity about the resource's scope.

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 description explicitly names the alternative for households ('Use household_credit_board for households') and scopes this tool to nonfinancial-firm funding stress. It also gives parameter-usage guidance ('full:true adds methods') and reinforces the tool's single-purpose nature with 'Answers ONE question'.

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