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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context by explaining that reports are derived from PDF filings, converted to markdown, and include metadata like allocation %, exposure, and top holdings. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but the list/discovery framing makes that behavior apparent, and the added provenance details go beyond basic semantics.

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 description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the content and provenance of the reports, and the third gives usage guidance. There is no fluff or repetition; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple list/discovery tool with all optional parameters and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool lists, what the reports contain, how to use it in relation to `read_holdings_report`, and the available filters. The output schema handles return details, so no further exposition is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'manager, fund type, or date range,' which loosely maps to all four parameters (manager_slug, fund_type, date_from, date_to), but it does not provide exact value formats (e.g., date syntax, slug format). This is a partial compensation, leaving some ambiguity about how to fill the parameters.

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: 'List available markdown holdings reports for Bulgarian pension funds.' It clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from the sibling `read_holdings_report` by stating it is for listing before loading specific reports. The scope is precise.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this tool to discover what reports are available before loading specific ones with read_holdings_report.' It also names the filter dimensions (manager, fund type, date range), giving clear context for when to use the tool and what it is for.

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