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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning that signals come with attached evidence in the data, which implies a structured output. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, or response format, so it adds only a small amount beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward read-only tool. However, it is very terse and could benefit from a tiny bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand when to select it among many similar siblings. It lacks usage context, return format details, and any mention of portfolio versus single-asset handling. The evidence clause hints at output structure but does not provide enough to confidently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema handles parameter details.

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 function: detecting opportunities and risks for a company, each with data-backed evidence. It names a specific resource (asset signals) and a verb (detect), which distinguishes it from vague tool names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_opportunities or get_risk_dashboard, so it lacks a clear contrast.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The parameters hint at portfolio vs single-asset usage, but the description itself gives no explicit usage context.

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