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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds value the annotations don't: the FREE marker, the 'sourced' data provenance, the informational-only disclaimer with a verify-with-firm instruction, and the fact that check performs a computation rather than a lookup. It doesn't say what check returns or whether data is cached/fresh, keeping it at a 3-4.

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-loads the key fact (FREE) and the three actions with their signatures compactly in one sentence each. No repetition, no filler. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information.

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 10-parameter, 0-required tool with no output schema and no required-parameter enforcement, an agent needs to know which parameters each action needs and what shape check returns. The description gives the action→parameter mapping but not the return shape or the semantics of the financial parameters, so an agent could still call check incorrectly.

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 only 10% (only 'program' is documented in the schema, with a format example and origin), so the description must compensate. It does so by listing which action consumes which parameters and flagging startingBalance/currentBalance/highWaterMark/todayPnl/dayStartBalance/customDailyLoss as optional. It still doesn't explain the semantics of e.g. todayPnl sign convention or highWaterMark, leaving a gap for a 10-param tool.

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?

States a specific resource (prop-firm rules: sourced drawdown and daily-loss rules) and the three actions verbatim. No sibling is named, but no sibling in the list covers prop-firm rules either, so differentiation is implicit. Clear enough that an agent knows exactly what domain this serves.

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 enumerated actions with their argument lists give an agent a clear routing map: list_firms → get_rules(program) → check(program, accountSize, currentEquity). Missing is guidance on when to prefer check over get_rules (e.g., 'use check when you need a live drawdown number'), but the flow is strongly implied.

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