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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Retrieve' to imply a read-only operation and 'KB-backed' plus 'excerpts' to indicate the source and partial nature of returned data, providing some useful context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is non-mutating, safe, or limited by rate constraints, leaving the agent with partial information.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('KB-backed rule excerpts'), followed by the purpose. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose clearly but omits important contextual details: it does not clarify the output format (crucial since there is no output schema), explain the role of limit_per_firm, or mention the min/max firm constraints visible in the schema. While the schema covers some constraints, the description leaves the tool's return behavior and limits underspecified for an agent.

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 67%, with slugs and question described, but limit_per_firm has no description in the schema or the tool description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema—its listed comparison areas (drawdown, payouts, etc.) are already in the question parameter's schema description. The lack of any guidance on limit_per_firm is a notable gap.

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 the tool retrieves KB-backed rule excerpts for multiple firms, with a specific purpose of comparing drawdown, payouts, consistency, news trading, and prohibited practices. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('KB-backed rule excerpts') and scope ('multiple firms'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_firm_rules (single firm) and compare_firms (likely metric comparison).

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 gives clear context: use this when you need to compare rule-related aspects across multiple firms, listing example focus areas. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_firm_rules or compare_firms, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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