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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the conditional result shape (total plus seven groups, or a single line) and the data-quality caveat that figures held for review are absent rather than estimated.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the return shape and the conditional behavior are front-loaded. The parenthetical examples add precision rather than padding, though the sentence structure is slightly list-like rather than maximally scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back — value, share, total plus seven groups, or one line. Combined with the data-quality note and the defaults documented in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the units/periodicity conventions for multi-month requests are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by clarifying what asset_class accepts — a group such as 'Equities' or a class id such as 'treasury_bills' — which the schema only vaguely calls 'group, class id or label'. It also implies the single-line response shape when that parameter is set.

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 states a specific resource and scope — monthly Nigerian pension asset allocation with value in naira and share of total assets. It is far more precise than the title 'Pension allocation' and lets an agent distinguish it from get_pension_coverage or get_pension_rotation, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

It explains the effect of supplying asset_class versus omitting it, which is real usage guidance for the parameter. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling pension tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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