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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantic context—'PARTIAL may mean missing qualifying history or unpassed replay; it never means calm'—and asserts that measure counts are exact, which is valuable beyond the structured metadata.

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 at two sentences and front-loads the main content before clarifying a likely misinterpretation. It stays efficient, though it relies on domain-specific terms like 'Seiche', 'replay', and 'calm' that are not expanded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool provides and explains the ambiguous PARTIAL value. It does not detail the output layout, but with no inputs and strong annotations, nothing essential for selecting or invoking it 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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. There are no parameter semantics needed because there is nothing to configure or clarify.

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 identifies the tool's content—nine market-segment tiers, Seiche funding overlay, exact measure counts, replay eligibility, and withholding reasons—which makes its role clear and distinguishes it from funding-only siblings like crypto_funding_cost. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'shows', so it reads as a content inventory rather than a precise operation statement.

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 'Full board' framing and mention of exact counts imply a comprehensive overview role, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternative siblings. The PARTIAL clarification is useful output interpretation, but it does not address tool selection.

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