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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the data sourcing (filing-availability proxy, +60-day delay), the limitation that overwritten amendments are unreconstructable, and that rigor artifacts are never trimmed. This informs the agent about data caveats and the nature of the output, which the read-only/idempotent annotations do not cover.

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 dense but well-structured, with each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary details and an explicit pointer to the sibling tool. No waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the contents (verdicts, lead times, uncertainty intervals, rigor artifacts) and noting data limitations. It is complete for the agent to understand what to expect without any additional structured metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which is the only needed semantic and aligns with the baseline score of 4. It adds clarity beyond the schema by confirming no input is required.

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 the tool reads a full Indian crisis diagnostic, specifying the scope (48 institutions, two decades) and content (verdicts, lead times, uncertainty intervals, rigor artifacts). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool evidence_institution by positioning this as the full diagnostic, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the user when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use evidence_institution for one institution's complete replay.' This provides clear context and a direct exclusion, so the agent knows this tool is for the full diagnostic and when to go elsewhere.

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