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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that semantic and economic evidence are kept separate and never combined, that benchmark figures appear only where measured, and that missing economic measurement returns NOT_MEASURED rather than a borrowed value.

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 well organized with WHEN, NOT for, and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes essential routing or behavioral information, and the most important usage boundary 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the caller should expect, including the NOT_MEASURED fallback and the separation of evidence types. Some jargon like 'dated forward-return pack' and 'n, window, as-of' is not expanded, but the core invocation contract is sufficiently clear.

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 100% and the one parameter 'id' already has a description. The description references 'listed skill' which maps to the capability id, but it does not add meaningful format, source, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 tool as returning a dated forward-return pack for a listed skill, and the title supplies the 'get' verb and resource. The 'NOT for' clause explicitly distinguishes it from a live scan and from current-day hits, separating it from sibling 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 description gives an explicit WHEN condition ('need the dated forward-return pack for a listed skill') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use as a live scan... not today's hits'). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the usage boundary is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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