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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the boundary-value policy ("reported as such, not guessed") and that obligations are returned alongside the category. It does not describe response structure or the shape of the obligations, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the outcome is front-loaded before the invocation hint and the boundary-value caveat. 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?

With no output schema, the description must signal what comes back, and it does: the category plus the obligations attached to it, and a clear stance on uncategorised boundary values. It stops short of describing the structure of the obligations, but an agent has enough to call correctly.

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% and each criterion parameter is self-documented with units, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only the meta-rule that entity_type determines which of the seven figures are required — useful framing but not per-parameter 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?

States a specific verb (works out), resource (SEBI CSCRF category), and enumerates the full output space (MII, Qualified, Mid-size, Small-size, Self-certification, Exempt) plus the derived obligations. Nothing about this overlaps with the sibling tools, which are search/lookup oriented.

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?

"Call with only entity_type to see which figures it needs" gives explicit, actionable invocation guidance for the progressive-disclosure pattern. It doesn't name an alternative tool or say when-not to use it, but the siblings are unrelated enough that this is a minor gap.

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