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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description discloses deterministic graph synthesis, absence of LLM/trading behavior, the output shape (eight-section thesis-map), and the handling of missing evidence ('Missing evidence remains missing'). These details add meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 dense paragraph but logically organized: purpose, parameters, output, behavior. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence contributes meaning, especially given the tool's complexity (18 parameters). It is not as crisp as the TDQS 4.3 example but earns a solid 4.

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 tool's complexity, the output schema exists, and annotations are strong, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input flexibility, output structure, safety semantics, and limitations ('not an LLM or trading layer'). Nothing critical seems missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description only lists parameter names without additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description does hint at relevant parameter groups (e.g., start objects), but it does not materially enhance understanding of individual parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: 'reverse search' of the DeltaSignal River, with an explicit scope statement ('start from a TripCode, issuer, claim, filing, or current object and reconstruct what the River already covered'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself a 'thesis-lineage tool' and by contrasting with 'not an LLM or trading layer.'

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 provides clear usage context: use when you need to reconstruct River coverage from an existing object, and it lists parameter categories. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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