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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the type of data returned (trailing returns, risk metrics, etc.) but does not mention any side effects, data freshness, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, which is a mild behavioral cue.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description lists the major return components but leaves ambiguity around 'IMF' (undefined acronym) and does not describe the response structure. It is adequate for a basic retrieval tool but could be more complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation with 'NPS scheme code, e.g. SM001001'. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning.

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 retrieves NPS-specific metrics (trailing returns, risk metrics, benchmark assignment, IMF) for a scheme. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_metrics (generic) and get_nps_holdings (different data).

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 implies this tool is used when NPS metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_metrics or get_nps_scheme. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only lightly implied.

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