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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value with the 'as of a date' snapshot semantics of effective_at and the endpoint path, but says nothing about pagination behavior even though the schema references a 'next_offset' that no output schema defines.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the core resource and the date semantics come first. The raw endpoint string is the only line that does not clearly earn its place for an agent.

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 seven-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the shape of the data at a high level but leaves the returned cost fields and the pagination contract unexplained. Adequate to select the tool, thin for calling it correctly on multi-page reads.

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 100%, so the baseline applies: every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description echoes the effective_at and code/lot filter concepts but adds no constraints, defaults or interaction rules beyond what the schema states.

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 the resource (cost data per lot) and its point-in-time nature, plus the underlying GET endpoint, so an agent can tell this returns cost records rather than lot composition or analyses. It never uses an explicit verb like 'List', and cost-vs-composition vs summary siblings are only distinguished by inference from the resource name.

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?

Mentions filtering by lot code or id, which hints at the retrieval use case, but gives no when-to-use guidance against innovint_get_lot, innovint_get_lot_composition or innovint_list_lots, and no statement of what this tool cannot do.

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