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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that results carry provenance, raw source line references, and custodial/methodology caveats, and by flagging that pre-2011 comparisons describe published estimates rather than beneficial-owner flows. That is meaningful methodological context the annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then constraints, then output contents, then the caveat. Nothing is filler, though the final caveat sentence is long and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (endpoint values, absolute/percent change, sources, provenance, caveats), so an agent knows what to expect. Coverage is strong for a read-only analysis tool; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 2-8 holder bound and the exact-month requirement, but adds no format or resolution detail (e.g. how 'unambiguous published labels' are matched) beyond what the schema already states.

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 (compare) and resource (MFH Treasury holders), with the exact scope: two to eight holders, two exact months, ranked by absolute change. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like treasury_tic_rank_holders and treasury_tic_holder_history by framing the operation as an endpoint-to-endpoint comparison.

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?

Gives a real precondition: primary observations are required at both endpoints, so the agent knows the input assumptions. However, it never explicitly names the sibling alternatives (find_holders, rank_holders, holder_history) or says when this comparison is preferable to them, leaving that routing to inference.

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