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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses token-to-seat binding scope, that only the caller's own seat is visible, the no_seat/no_desk failure reasons, the archive-vs-live distinction, and a data-interpretation caveat that a card is a dated scan result, not a recommendation. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 WHEN / NOT for / Returns structure is front-loaded and scannable, and each block earns its place. The Returns payload enumeration is dense but justified since no output schema exists; the description is long but not padded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and return shape — it does both, enumerating the desk/cards/watchlist/setups structure and the ok:false reasons. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent besides the unused limit parameter.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for both parameters. It explains include_archive ('pass include_archive:true for cards no longer live') but says nothing about the limit parameter despite its 1-400 maximum, so half the surface remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource — reading the caller's own Dantes Desk, watchlist and setups — and explicitly contrasts it with siblings ('Not a market screen and not another person's desk'). An agent can distinguish get_desk from get_dantes_rating or search_capabilities without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives a WHEN block with concrete user utterances ('what is on my desk', 'which of my desk names are Strong Buy'), a NOT-for block ruling out market screening and other people's desks, and names the alternative behavior on failure (answers no_seat and say so rather than guessing). This is complete routing guidance.

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