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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context that it applies to 'forensically covered tickers' and enumerates facility types, which goes beyond schema. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors such as handling of uncovered tickers or response edge cases.

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?

A single, tightly packed sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. The dash-separated attribute list is efficient and scannable, making every word purposeful.

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 read-only tool with full parameter coverage and an output schema, the description covers the core 'what' and 'for whom' adequately. It lacks explicit relationship to sibling dilution tools, which would strengthen the overall contextual picture.

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 coverage is 100% with both ticker and limit described, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource (dilution facilities) and adds specificity with facility types (shelf/ATM/warrants/convertibles) and attributes (capacity, usage, remaining, prices, status). It differentiates itself from sibling dilution tools by focusing on facilities, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'retrieves'.

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 like snacs_dilution_get or snacs_dilution_asof_get. The description implies it returns current facility data but does not state exclusions or list alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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