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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context in 'End-of-day as_of' (data freshness) and 'No scoring or delivery authority' (scope boundary), but says nothing about include_history behaviour, result volume or alert semantics.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with purpose and with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient but borders on cryptic in places (e.g. the bare colon-mapping), which slightly reduces readability.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers scope and freshness but leaves include_history unexplained and says little about the shape of the returned evidence, gaps and alerts. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the slug vs slugs vs neither selection and gives as_of an end-of-day interpretation, but the fourth parameter, include_history, is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 phrase 'Bank/NBFC evidence, gaps and review alerts' names the resource and the three things the tool returns, which is clear enough that an agent knows what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as evidence_institution, institution_research_coverage or institution_review_packet, which also deal with institutional evidence.

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?

'slug: one record; slugs: watchlist; neither: all tracked' gives real selection guidance for scope, and 'No scoring or delivery authority' implicitly sets a boundary. But it never states when to prefer this tool over the alternatives or what prerequisites apply, so usage is only implied.

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