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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a diagnostic report, not a validated backtest, not bank-specific, and it reports aggregate quarterly watchlists with recall, uncertainty, and lead times. This goes beyond the annotation surface without contradicting it.

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-loaded with the core purpose. The caveats and output summary are packed into three sentences that all earn their place, though the density of caveats and output details makes it slightly less skimmable than it could be.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (quarterly watchlist, recall, uncertainty, lead times), the scope (US construction-PIT), and the parameter behavior. It is sufficient for correct selection and invocation, though it could briefly name sibling evidence tools for routing.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and payload-size warning. The description's 'include_trajectories:true adds histories' restates the schema concept in plainer language but does not add materially new semantic information beyond it.

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 a specific resource ('US bank current-amended-vintage diagnostics and named replays, including misses'). It also clarifies what the tool is not ('Not a validated point-in-time backtest') and that it is not an individual-bank verdict, distinguishing it from related monitoring tools.

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 gives clear when-to-use context for US construction-PIT watchlist diagnostics and explicitly excludes use as a validated backtest or an individual-bank verdict. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state conditions for choosing them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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