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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description explicitly states that uncovered institutions 'remain absent, never scored from memory,' which is a crucial closed-world behavioral disclosure that prevents hallucination. It also names the data categories returned, adding valuable context not present in annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action and content are front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat is placed at the end without bloating the description.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers what data is returned, how to obtain a valid slug, and what happens for uncovered institutions. No output schema exists, but the enumerated content types give the agent sufficient expectation of the response.

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 thoroughly documents the single parameter with format, source, and example. The description adds meaning by tying the slug to failure_radar_board discovery and by implying that only covered institutions are valid inputs, which goes beyond the schema's basic type/format explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read one Indian lender dossier') and enumerates the substantive contents: quarterly PDs and drivers, PCA/SAF headroom, funding, forensic and listed-market evidence. It also references the sibling failure_radar_board for slug discovery, which helps situate the tool among its siblings.

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 context: use this tool to read a dossier for a single covered Indian lender, and discover valid slugs via failure_radar_board. It also warns that uncovered institutions are absent, effectively telling the agent not to attempt lookup for unknown institutions, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not conditions.

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