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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real behavior: verdict categories (backed/underbacked/incomplete), the null-ratio refusal rule when a line is unpriced, and a per-line sha256 evidence hash. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned report.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: transformation, decision rule with rationale, then an explicit misuse warning. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 exists, and the description enumerates the possible verdicts and the null-ratio condition, which is what an agent most needs. The remaining gap is the internal structure of the nested reserve document, which neither schema nor description specifies.

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?

With one required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema description is thin ('Reserve document.') and the nested object structure is undocumented; the description only hints that the document contains lines with prices. It adds marginal but not compensating detail.

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 verb and resource: turning an issuer's reserve lines into a NAV with formulas and a sha256 evidence hash per line. The output artifact (verdict plus backed ratio) is clearly distinct. It does not name any sibling tool, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation from resolve_report or reconcile_books.

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 'Do NOT treat the result as a statutory audit' line gives a clear interpretation boundary, and the refusal rule signals when a ratio is meaningful. However there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling report tools, which are named in context but never referenced.

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