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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the four component signals being compared, the temporal comparison method (recent vs historical), and the score scale and direction of the output.

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 sentences with a clean progression: purpose, methodology/output, usage trigger. No filler, no repetition of the parameter schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still supplies the composite methodology and score range. The only gap is the failure to disambiguate from get_management_credibility in a toolset crowded with management-quality variants.

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?

A single ticker parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already includes concrete examples ('FPH', 'AIR', 'SPK'). The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g. required format, error behavior for unknown tickers), so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get management credibility momentum'), names the market domain ('NZX company'), and specifies the composite inputs (guidance accuracy, tone stability, insider alignment, transparency trends). It is clearly distinct from a static score in spirit, but it never names or contrasts with the near-identical sibling get_management_credibility, leaving the agent to infer the level-vs-trajectory distinction.

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?

'Use when assessing whether management quality is on an upward or downward trajectory' gives a clear situational trigger. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing (e.g. use get_management_credibility for a point-in-time level), so sibling selection remains partly inferential.

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