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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavioral context. It adds 'no live execution model' and 'declared blind spots', which meaningfully warn agents about the tool's limitations beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core output, the access/limitation context, and the alternative tool. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key output components and limitations while the schema covers the cik behavior. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

The single optional cik parameter is already fully described in the schema, including the contrast between the all-filer headline and a specific filer's row. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the output as published watched-filer unwind risk and names its components: effective positions, days-to-exit brackets, and declared blind spots. It distinguishes itself from the full scenario grid by pointing to unwind_stress, but it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'returns' or 'calculates'.

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 frames this as a 'public headline only' view with 'no live execution model', making the tool's limited scope clear. It then directs users needing the full scenario grid to unwind_stress, providing a concrete alternative selection criterion.

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