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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and mutability are covered. The description adds useful caveat context that filing-availability proxies do not establish a validated backtest, which helps set expectations for the replay's evidentiary status.

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 main action. The three sentences each serve a purpose: core read behavior, sibling routing, and a validity caveat, though the first sentence is dense with domain terminology.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns conceptually: lens alert timing and hit/miss/false-alarm verdict. It also provides a critical caveat about validation, though additional detail on replay contents could further help.

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%, so the slug parameter is already well documented with an example. The description adds value by telling the agent to use evidence_india for exact slugs, clarifying where to obtain valid parameter values.

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 and resource: reading a sourced Indian construction-PIT quarterly replay, with focus on alert timing and hit/miss/false-alarm verdict. It distinguishes itself from the sibling evidence_india by directing slug lookup there, though the domain term 'construction-PIT' may not be immediately transparent.

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: use evidence_india for exact slugs, implying this tool is for retrieving the replay after a slug is known. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list other alternatives beyond evidence_india.

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