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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them — that values are account-dependent ('numbers follow the connected account') — but says nothing about plan-based history depth, pagination, or latency, which the schema only partly hints at.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly clipped but still earns its place by naming the data provenance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape ('newest reading plus past boards', seven currencies) and the account linkage. It still leaves the score's scale/sign convention unstated, which is a minor but real gap for interpreting results.

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 coverage is 100%, so `fresh`, `limit` and `since` are fully documented in the schema, including the credit cost and plan limits. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (FX momentum scorecard), its scope (seven major currencies scored against the basket) and its coverage (newest reading plus past boards). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_vol_board or get_rates_and_curve, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling board/history tools. The only usage cue, the `fresh` live-view option, lives in the schema rather than the description, so an agent gets no routing advice here.

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