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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (KB-backed) and output components (source URLs, freshness metadata), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any prerequisites, error behavior, or limitations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes specific output details. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the essential usage context. It provides a solid high-level overview but leaves parameter behavior and when-to-use vs siblings unexplained, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 low (33%, only slug described). The description does not explain 'limit' or 'category' parameters, although the list of excerpt types implicitly maps to category enum values. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 verb 'Return' and the resource: KB-backed rules, pricing, payout, FAQ, and terms excerpts for one firm, with source URLs and freshness metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like compare_firm_rules by emphasizing 'for one firm' and the specific knowledge-base categories.

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 implies usage for retrieving one firm's KB-backed information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_firms, compare_firm_rules, or ask_propfirm_question. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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