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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states the tool is read-only and idempotent, performs a single HTTPS read, has no destructive side effects, and never infers covenant breach or other sensitive conclusions unless backed by evidence. This goes beyond the annotations and is highly valuable for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the use case. It covers output format, parameters, and behavior in a concise but complete manner. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 description is thorough for the tool's complexity. It explains output characteristics (Markdown, audit-grade, preserving data elements), parameter roles, and safety behaviors. Given the rich annotations and output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds nuance by explaining that the optional date parameter maps to the evidence period 'when supported,' which is helpful. However, it refers to the parameter as 'date' while the schema names it 'period,' causing slight ambiguity, so not a perfect score.

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's purpose: to provide ticker-specific covenant stress evidence in human-readable Markdown. It uses a specific verb ('explained') and resource ('covenant stress evidence'), and distinguishes from siblings like the structured covenant stress tools by mentioning 'Natural Language' and 'human-readable Markdown'.

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 gives a clear condition for use: 'when the user wants ticker-specific covenant stress evidence explained in human-readable Markdown.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for selection among sibling tools.

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