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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is mostly redundant. However, 'Every result carries its citation and link' is genuine value beyond the structured fields, telling the agent what comes back with each row in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the ordering rule comes early where it matters. The 'Read-only' clause duplicates the annotation and is the one mildly wasteful element.

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 output schema, the description steps in to say each result carries a citation and link, and it covers scope and ordering. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter (default and truncation behavior), which is a minor but real omission for a list-style tool.

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 only 50%: 'market' is documented in the schema itself, while 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description never mentions 'limit' — no default, no mention of the 1-100 cap or whether results are truncated — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific resource (companies within one market that have a Standing Report) and states the ordering (most named in AI answers first), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like search_companies or get_company_authority_score. The verb is implied by the title rather than the description, but the returned set is 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?

The phrase 'in one market with a Standing Report' implies a prerequisite (the market must have a Standing Report) but never states when to pick this over search_companies or list_markets. The schema hint 'Market slug from list_markets' supplies the discovery path, so usage is inferable but not spelled out in the description.

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