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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the content is sourced, the lens is alert timing with hit/miss/false-alarm verdicts, and proxy data does not count as a validated backtest. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, where to find valid slugs, and a caveat. Front-loaded with the action and resource before any caveat.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the input resolution path and the nature of the output (alert timing and verdicts). It is slightly opaque about the meaning of 'construction-PIT' and the exact output shape, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the slug property already includes format and examples. The description adds extra value by directing the agent to evidence_india for exact slugs, which is a practical resolution hint for the only 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a sourced Indian construction-PIT quarterly replay'), and the diagnostic output ('alert timing and hit/miss/false-alarm verdict'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling evidence_india by pointing to that tool for slug lookup.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use evidence_india for exact slugs, thereby routing slug discovery to the right sibling. It also warns that filing-availability proxies do not establish a validated backtest, giving an implicit when-not condition.

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