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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'bounded' hints at limit/pagination, but there is no disclosure of return format, cursor behavior, permission requirements, or what 'canonical' versus redistribution validation actually means for results. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally tidy. But the density of unexplained domain jargon ('canonical', 'source-wide redistribution validation') means the brevity comes at the cost of comprehension rather than earning its place.

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 an 11-parameter, 2-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single jargon sentence is inadequate. Nothing explains the partition filters, time windows, or quality/staleness selectors needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It explains none of market, source, quality, staleness, event_from/to, knowledge_at, instrument_id, cursor, or semantic_role; only 'bounded' loosely gestures at limit.

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?

States a verb ('Read') and resource ('canonical Seiche rows'), so it is more than a restatement of the name. However, 'source-wide redistribution validation' is opaque jargon and the description does not differentiate this tool from siblings like bis_observations, corpus_catalog, or seiche_markets. An agent gets a rough sense of a read tool but not of what makes it distinct.

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 phrase 'after source-wide redistribution validation' faintly implies a precondition, but it is never stated as when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No alternatives (e.g., bis_observations) are named, so the agent has no routing guidance.

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