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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it returns summaries (vote counts, compliance rates, period dates) and requires a corporate tier, which is an access precondition an agent must know before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then returns, then triggers, then the tier gate. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still covers scope, content summary, triggers, and the corporate-tier requirement. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the calibration baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists to describe.

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 (List) plus resource (FMA-compliant stewardship/voting-record reports) and scopes it to the current user. Distinguishable from the singular get_stewardship_report and from get_fund_votes/get_vote_history at the sibling level.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases ('Use when asked about stewardship reports, voting records, FMA compliance reports, or fund manager voting history') give an agent clear routing context. It does not name the singular get_stewardship_report as the alternative for a single-report lookup, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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