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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes further by flagging that the results are an estimate, specifying sort order (soonest first), and enumerating the returned fields including per-close counts.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and the use case, and every clause carries information. The middle field enumeration (address, drop_close, closes_left, drop_ts_est, etc.) is dense jargon that lengthens the sentence without much decision value.

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, listing the returned fields is genuinely useful, and the estimate caveat plus ordering make the tool callable without further context. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'counts per close' means structurally and how results behave beyond the limit cap.

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 both parameters (close filter, limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect hints ('at the latest close', 'counts per close') and no format or edge-case semantics 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?

Names a precise resource (Established Agents estimated to lose standing at the open epoch's close or the next) plus the exact rule behind the estimate (L + estab_ttl + 1), which clearly separates it from list_established and get_standing_changes.

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?

Explicitly states the intended question ('who loses standing next') and routes the single-Agent case to get_standing. It does not differentiate from other near-siblings such as list_established or get_standing_changes, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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