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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds substantive domain-specific caveats beyond annotations: publication clocks are preferred, a +60-day filing-lag proxy is used otherwise, and overwritten amendments are unreconstructable. These are exactly the limitations an agent must know before relying on the diagnostic.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then methodology caveats, then the sibling distinction. No sentence is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers scope, data-quality limitations, and the main sibling alternative. It stops short of describing the return structure beyond 'including misses and false alarms', but the core invocation context is complete.

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, so parameter semantics are inherently minimal. The description appropriately does not invent parameter discussion; baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource: the 48-institution Indian construction-PIT crisis diagnostic. It also distinguishes the deliverable from the sibling 'evidence_institution', which returns a full replay, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

The description clearly implies this is the headline diagnostic with misses and false alarms, while 'evidence_institution' provides the full replay. It does not spell out an explicit 'use this when' rule, but the comparative framing gives enough context to choose correctly.

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