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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: results are a 'conservative loss classification' aggregate and 'only explicitly-USD losses are summed,' which tells the agent how to interpret the numbers. No coverage of aggregation window recency or result size.

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, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the interpretation caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient to invoke correctly; the only remaining gap is that 'Trust Onion Pulse' is never grounded in plain terms and no aggregation recency/freshness is given.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single optional integer 'year'. It does: the parenthetical explains that omitting it yields all-time stats and supplying it scopes to one incident year, which is exactly the semantic the bare 1990-2100 range lacks. It doesn't clarify matching rules (incident year vs. report year).

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 verb (Return) and resource (Trust Onion Pulse summary) with scope qualifiers, which distinguishes it from list_/search_/explain_ siblings. However, 'Trust Onion Pulse' is internal jargon that is not tied back to the tool's actual subject (scam statistics) named in the title, so an agent gets the shape but not an unambiguous restatement of purpose.

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 parenthetical '(all time, or for one incident year)' implicitly tells the agent when to pass the year argument versus omitting it, which is useful routing guidance. It never states when to prefer this tool over search_incidents or get_incident, so usage is only implied.

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