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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds further transparency by confirming deterministic behavior, explaining the partial result flag, detailing the output (narrative with severity and citations), and disclosing the tier restriction (sp500+). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing supplementary details in a logical order. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the return value nature and usage context. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the specific financial statement items used, but it remains informative for agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameter description in the schema is sufficient. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 computes deterministic forensic-accounting scores for a single ticker, listing specific metrics (partial Beneish M-Score, Sloan accruals, solvency snapshot). It distinguishes from siblings by being a specialized forensic audit, with no other tool offering this combination.

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 context by noting it is used by the 'forensic_earnings_brief' SOP and explains the limitation of partial computation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some guidance gaps.

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