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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live data, KB-backed source context, citations, and freshness/debug metadata, giving insight into the response composition. However, it does not mention limitations such as no-answer handling, rate limits, or potential side effects, and does not explain how the citations or metadata are structured.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and followed by concise usage guidance. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 Q&A tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context about data sources, citations, and metadata, and clearly delineates when to use it. It does not detail the exact output format or error handling, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity and the sibling context.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 75% of parameters (question, firm_slug, include_raw_sources), but the limit parameter lacks a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not compensate for that gap. The existing schema descriptions are helpful, but the overall parameter semantics are only adequate.

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 clearly states that the tool answers complex prop firm questions using live data and KB-backed source context. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_firm_score for simple single-firm score lookups, and positions itself for multi-firm comparisons or nuanced rules questions, differentiating it from comparison-focused siblings.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for multi-firm comparisons or nuanced rules questions.' It also gives a direct alternative for simple lookups: 'use get_firm_score first for a simple single-firm score lookup,' which acts as a when-not-to-use instruction. This is clear and actionable.

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