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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that uncovered institutions return nothing and are never scored from memory, which prevents fabricated answers. It does not mention output format or other operational constraints, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 three tightly packed sentences. Purpose and contents are front-loaded, followed by the discovery path and the uncovered-institution caveat. No sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It states what the dossier contains, how to obtain a valid slug, and how uncovered institutions behave, leaving no essential gap for correct invocation.

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 'slug' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including kebab-case format and provenance from a failure_radar_board row. The description's 'Discover slugs with failure_radar_board' largely repeats what the schema already states, so it adds only marginal value beyond the structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one Indian lender dossier') and enumerates the dossier's contents: quarterly PDs and drivers, PCA/SAF headroom, funding, forensic and listed-market evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling failure_radar_board by framing that tool as the discovery mechanism for slugs.

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 failure_radar_board to discover slugs, then call this tool with one. It also warns that uncovered institutions remain absent and are never scored from memory. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool against the many other evidence/research siblings (e.g., evidence_institution, institution_evidence_monitor) or state when not to use it.

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