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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it does not verify reserves, issuer solvency, or redemption rights, and states that parameters are processed remotely without application persistence. This goes far beyond the structured metadata and clearly sets expectations about limitations.

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 reasonably structured, starting with the core purpose and moving to limitations and usage, but it contains redundancy: 'It does not verify reserves, issuer solvency or redemption rights' is largely repeated by 'No live asset feed, reserve audit, redemption verification, credit rating or investment recommendation'. This repetition could be trimmed for tighter prose.

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?

Given the complexity of 4 required parameters with arrays of objects, the description covers key aspects: how to obtain exact inputs via fetch/example, what the tool does and does not do, and remote processing without persistence. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, with minor gaps around expected output shape being covered by the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context about the before/after arrays being disclosure fields and mentions retaining units/dates/source references, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond that. This is adequate but does not significantly enhance the schema-level semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'compares two sets of supplied asset disclosure fields while retaining units, dates and source references'. This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_compute_costs or reconcile_stablecoin_records, which target different domains. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating the tool compares asset disclosure fields and flags issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does advise 'Retrieve disclosures with fetch or read its example resource to obtain exact inputs', which is a practical prerequisite, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing compared to siblings.

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