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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the return format (compact index of slugs, titles, and descriptions) and the optional filters, going beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 well-organized sentences that cover the tool's purpose, return format, filtering options, and a pointer to the sibling tool, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, the schema with full parameter descriptions, and the read-only annotation, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it further. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for a compact index tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters and an enum for template_name, so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description only mentions optional filtering without adding extra semantic detail, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 lists Hemrock financial-modeling concept docs, provides specific topic examples, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_concept tool by noting it returns a compact index. The verb 'lists' precisely describes the action and the resource is well-defined.

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 says to call get_concept to read the full text of any entry, providing a direct alternative and guiding when to use this tool vs its sibling. It also implies usage for obtaining an overview or filtered index, which is clear context.

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