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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the exact output shape (five 0-100 dimension scores plus a Transparent/Adequate/Opaque/Concerning rating) and the specific signals detected, which helps an agent interpret results.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then the detected signals, then the usage trigger. Dense but every clause contributes; the dimension enumeration is long but maps directly to what the tool reports.

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 detail return values, and it still summarizes them. Annotations cover safety, the single required param is schema-documented, and usage contexts are given, leaving only sibling differentiation as a minor gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents 'ticker' with an example (FPH). The description adds no format, validation, or lookup nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze disclosure language evolution for an NZX company') and enumerates the five detection dimensions. The 'evolution' framing distinguishes it from siblings like get_disclosure_language_benchmark (comparison) and get_disclosure_score (point score), so an agent can route correctly.

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 says 'Use when asked about disclosure quality, language analysis, hedging, transparency trends, or communication style,' giving clear triggering contexts. However, it names no alternatives and offers no when-not guidance against close siblings such as get_risk_language or get_disclosure_language_benchmark.

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