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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by clarifying that this is an evidence audit, not investment performance, that the receipt's details must be preserved, and that coverage is limited to the calibrated cohort-band method and population.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action and invocation requirement, followed by a tight set of scoping caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of already-visible schema structure.

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 zero parameters, an existing output schema, and rich annotation hints, the description is complete: it states what to read, what to preserve, how coverage should and should not be interpreted, and how it relates to sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms that no arguments or earlier tool call are needed. This fully resolves any ambiguity about invocation and complements the empty input 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the published five-session calibration receipt.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly noting that market_state results are out of scope and that daily-note results have their own tally in daily_note.

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 explicitly states that no arguments or earlier tool call are needed, gives clear scope boundaries, and tells the agent when not to generalize the results — e.g., not to market_state's empirical excess ranges, all research, or future returns. It also points to daily_note as the home for daily-note results.

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