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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: results are 'computed from the tape at request time, nothing hardcoded,' the corroboration rule requires six consecutive consistent observations, and it explains distinctions like router refusal versus an empty book. This is far more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 densely informative but runs as one long paragraph with multiple nested parentheticals and repeats 'FREE' at the beginning and 'Free.' at the end. While it front-loads the core purpose, it would be more agent-friendly as bullet points or shorter sentences.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is measured, the corroboration rule, status vocabulary, control design, results, coverage, and cadence, and it explains when to read it relative to get_exit_quote. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, which gives a baseline of 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 statement: 'FREE: how overhang measures exit liquidity on lending collateral, and the counts behind every paid answer.' It then enumerates exactly what the tool returns: measurement definition, corroboration rule, status vocabulary, control design, gated sweep, row counts, covered symbols/markets, and cadence. This clearly differentiates it from the paid sibling get_exit_quote.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Read this before paying for get_exit_quote, and to check the claim rather than trust it.' This names the relevant alternative and provides a clear ordering and use case, so there is no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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