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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, it discloses that output is display-only, excludes institution-level scores and watchlist tiers, and that data gaps remain flagged as cannot_see. It also explains the effect of full:true on the payload, adding behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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: core question first, sibling routing second, limitations third, and parameter effect last. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 display-only board with one optional boolean, the description covers what question it answers, what data themes it includes, what it excludes, how gaps are represented, and the optional parameter's effect. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameter full is already fully documented in the schema with default behavior and payload implications. The description adds the useful nuance that full:true also returns methods and histories, which is extra value beyond the schema, though not strictly necessary given 100% schema coverage.

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 the exact question answered ('is stress reaching US household credit?'), names the resource (US household credit), and explicitly differentiates it from corporate_transmission_board for firms. This gives a specific, scoped purpose an agent can distinguish from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly directs agents to corporate_transmission_board when the focus is firms, and clarifies this board is display-only with no institution score or watchlist tier. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to a sibling tool.

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