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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds two real facts beyond them: results are 'bounded' (paginated/capped) and are only served after a source-wide redistribution validation, which is meaningful freshness/correctness context. It does not explain what happens if validation has not run, or what 'canonical' excludes.

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 and no repetition of structured fields. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for an 11-parameter tool, which the completeness score penalizes separately.

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, no-output-schema tool with 9% description coverage, this is far too thin. Terms like 'canonical' and 'redistribution validation' are unexplained jargon, and nothing tells an agent how the enum filters (quality, staleness) interact or what a row contains.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: 'bounded' weakly gestures at limit/cursor and 'source-wide' at source, but market, quality, staleness, event_from/event_to, knowledge_at, instrument_id, and semantic_role are undocumented in both schema and text.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('canonical Seiche rows') with a scope qualifier ('bounded') and a stated precondition ('after source-wide redistribution validation'). It is distinguishable from seiche_markets, but it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from the other *_observations / *_records tools.

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' implies a precondition but never states when an agent should choose this tool over seiche_markets or the bis_* observation tools, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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