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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: it is 'display-only' on frozen grids, uses bands instead of point estimates for counts, and notes that 13F data excludes shorts/options so every number is a floor. It also explains the three 'honest states' of the leverage grid, adding context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence contributes value: what the tool does, how metrics are computed, default vs optional parameter, limitations, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with the core question and remains information-dense without fluff, earning a 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the main outputs (effective position count, days-to-exit, leverage grid with states) and clarifies the default vs cik behavior. It also addresses limitations (frozen grids, no shorts/options) which is critical for interpreting results. The context is complete for an agent to invoke and understand the tool.

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 schema already provides a clear description for the single optional parameter cik (returns that filer's full FREE row). The tool description reinforces this ('pass cik for one filer's full free row') and mentions the default, but it does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear question ('Can a watched fund's book actually leave the building?') and then specifies the resource (watched 13F filers) and the primary output (days-to-exit, leverage grid, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on exit feasibility, not just cost or liquidity.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when asked whether a fund's book could exit, or what the Aschenbrenner failure mode looks like in a current filing.' It also explains the default behavior and how to get a single filer's row via cik. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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