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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered without contradiction. The description adds useful context about the tool's scope, including the 'honesty rubric' and 'what each check can and cannot establish,' which hints at limitations. However, it does not describe return behavior, output structure, or other operational traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a compact, informative list of covered topics. Every phrase adds meaning and there is no filler. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, read-only, with an output schema), and the description covers the main thematic scope and even notes epistemic limitations. Still, it does not clarify what happens when topic is omitted, how to select among the enum options, or how the output is organized beyond relying on the output schema. These gaps are moderate given the availability of enum and schema information.

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 explain the topic parameter, but it does not directly define how the parameter is used or why one would choose a value. It mentions several enum values in prose (margin, slippage, settlement) but not all, and gives no instruction on selection or default behavior. The enum itself is self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the subject matter: how a result is produced, covering specific elements such as entry pricing, settlement, margin, and slippage. It names the resource and gives a topical list, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'explains' and does not directly contrast with sibling tools. It is still specific enough to distinguish it as a methodology-explanation tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as build_report, describe_coverage, or fetch. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the topic list, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected.

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