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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful content disclosure that superseded amendments are included, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result size; with no output schema it could say more about the shape of the response.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-required-param read with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never defines the symbol parameter or clarifies what 'field evidence' comprises. An agent could call it correctly only by guessing at symbol's role.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters and it does not. It implies instrumentId comes from credit.documents, but never explains what 'symbol' is or how it relates to the instrument (e.g. required for scoping, must match the instrument's issuer).

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?

Names a specific resource (one credit instrument) and the exact payload (full field evidence plus superseded amendment history), which separates it from credit.documents that only returns IDs. The retrieval verb is implied rather than stated, but the object and scope are unambiguous.

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 chains from the sibling: 'Use an instrument ID returned by credit.documents', telling the agent the prerequisite and the correct upstream call. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming any other alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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