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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful limitations: display-only output, no institution score or tier, and that full=true adds methods. Terms like 'Seiche context' and 'cannot_see preserves gaps' are opaque, but the description still adds meaningful context beyond 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 description is compact and front-loads the core question and sibling routing. Some fragments such as 'cannot_see preserves gaps' and 'Seiche context never enters regime or transmission' are terse to the point of being cryptic.

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 read-only board with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema it does not explain the board's return shape, and unexplained terms ('Seiche', 'cannot_see', 'CP') reduce completeness for an unfamiliar agent.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains that full adds method_note, thresholds, and per-leg basis prose. The description's 'full:true adds methods' is consistent but less precise than the schema, so it does not add much semantic 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 states a specific question and domain: US funding stress transmission to nonfinancial firms. It explicitly distinguishes itself from household_credit_board, so an agent can tell which sibling to use without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance for households via household_credit_board and frames usage around one specific question. It does not cover other possible alternatives or exclusions, but the main sibling distinction is explicit.

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