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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds meaningful context about what the replay includes, such as 'first-alert bookkeeping' and 'plain verdict line,' going beyond a bare read-only statement and giving the agent a detailed expectation of the returned content.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action 'Read' and immediately enumerating the data items. The second sentence is a clear directive for the prerequisite step. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete: it names the exact resource, lists all relevant data components, and explains the prerequisite relationship to evidence_india. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently specifies what will be returned.

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 'slug' parameter with a description and example, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to obtain the slug from evidence_india, providing a concrete lookup path that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('one Indian institution's complete construction-PIT crisis replay'), enumerating the contents (scored quarterly trajectory, dossier rows, alert bookkeeping, verdict line). It clearly distinguishes from sibling evidence_india by explicitly pointing to it as the list-first step.

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 says 'Call evidence_india first to list the replayed institutions and their slugs,' giving a concrete prerequisite and alternative. The India-specific scope and 'one institution' nature further clarify when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like evidence_europe or evidence_markets.

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