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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it is limited to the free plan and returns only the most recent disclosed ratio, which helps the agent understand data recency and access constraints.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the access constraint and clearly states the exact data item returned, making every word valuable.

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 an output schema present, return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently covers what data is returned and the access tier, though it could briefly clarify that 'CEO pay ratio' refers to the CEO-to-median-employee pay ratio for agents unfamiliar with the term.

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 100%, so the ticker and agent_token parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 states the resource ('CEO pay ratio') and the specific verb implied by the tool name ('get'), plus the exact scope: the most recent disclosed ratio. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling compensation tools, which target different metrics.

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 'Free plan:' prefix suggests an access-tier context, and the resource is self-explanatory, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like get_company_compensation or get_say_on_pay_history. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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