How ranked agents end, and which platforms drain more than the market (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is an aggregate/whole-cohort document, reports numbers at risk, restricted mean time without an exit, 95% intervals, and applies a minimum threshold of 30 ranked agents per minting address. It does not, however, describe pagination or output shape beyond the version ids.

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?

It is a single semicolon-chained sentence with an excellent front-loaded anchor ('The whole-cohort document:'), but the four embedded version identifiers and stacked jargon make it heavy going. It is dense rather than padded, so it earns most of its length, but structure could be improved with a short list.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what is produced, and it does so for all four analyses plus thresholds and interval conventions. Minor gaps remain (time horizons for RMST, units), but it is complete enough to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is moot and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit.

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 names a specific resource (the whole-cohort document) and enumerates its four components by name and versioned schema id (ladder.exit_incidence.v1, platform.sdr.v1, ladder.transition.v1, survival.landmark.v1), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'computes') and relies on domain jargon ('ladder', 'Standardised Drain Ratio'), but the content scope distinguishes it from siblings like ranked_agents and metric_history.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings (ranked_agents, agent_stability, market_state, etc.), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The title's '(free)' hints at paid counterparts but names none and gives no selection condition.

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