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

Annotations already communicate mutation and destructive potential (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that this is a manual record with an as-of time, but it does not disclose whether an existing quote is overwritten or what happens to prior values.

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 sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the second sentence provides necessary context about live-source refresh. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover the destructive/mutation profile, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. The main gaps are the meanings of holding and the representation of as_of, which an agent needs for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies as_of as a point in time, but not its expected format, and leaves holding entirely unexplained, making it hard for an agent to know what value to supply.

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 ('Record') and resource ('current price of a holding'), and scopes the action to manual entry from the broker app. The contrast with the app's own live-source refresh clearly differentiates this from related holding tools.

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use the tool: for holdings without a live source. It also states that the app refreshes live sources on its own, implying this tool should not be used for those holdings, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling tool.

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