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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. Beyond those, the description discloses output-level traits: results are display-only, carry no institution score or watchlist tier, and undisclosed items are surfaced in a cannot_see field rather than dropped — meaningful context an agent cannot infer from 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 definition is short, front-loaded with the core question, and every clause carries information — sibling routing, coverage scope, output limits, and the parameter effect. It is slightly telegraphic ('gaps stay in cannot_see', 'no institution score or watchlist tier'), which costs a little readability for an unfamiliar agent.

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, closed-world, read-only board with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it answers, where it stops (corporate side), and what it explicitly will not produce. It doesn't sketch the shape of the returned board, but with no output schema and a display-oriented tool that gap is modest.

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% and the single 'full' parameter is already documented with its additions (method_note, thresholds, labels, sparklines). The description's 'full:true adds methods and histories' roughly restates that schema text, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden and the description only echoes 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 question the tool answers ('is stress reaching US household credit?') and enumerates the covered subject matter: delinquency, charge-offs, revolving credit, and unscored debt-service context. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling corporate_transmission_board, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('Use corporate_transmission_board for firms'), which is the main routing decision an agent faces here. It also sets scope limits by declaring the tool display-only with no institution score or watchlist tier, though it doesn't name which sibling handles institution-level views (e.g. failure_radar_institution).

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