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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data-coverage window (FY2022 forward), the per-figure citation behavior, and the explicit absence of benchmark/percentile/narrative content. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations and 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 sentences with no filler; the free-plan limitation, exact return contents, and feature exclusions are all front-loaded. Every sentence adds information about scope or behavior. This is an appropriately sized description for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 a full input schema (100% coverage), an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential use case and limitations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from lookup_company_compensation, but the 'free plan' vs 'paid product' contrast plus the specific SCT components make the intent clear. A minor gap is the lack of a named sibling for paid capabilities, but the description is broadly complete.

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 schema already documents ticker, agent_token, and fiscal_year. The description mentions fiscal-year scope but does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'optional fiscal year to read' description. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 verb ('returns') and a precise resource: Summary Compensation Table components for named executive officers from fiscal year 2022 forward. It explicitly scopes out benchmark context, percentiles, and narrative analysis, which separates it from sibling tools like benchmark_executive_pay and generate_governance_alpha_card. The 'free plan' label clarifies which product tier this belongs to.

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?

It states the tool is the free-plan version and that benchmark context, percentiles, and narrative analysis are only in the paid product, signaling when not to use this tool. The exclusion is explicit enough to route an agent away from benchmark or analysis tasks, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative. It does not cover when to choose get_company_compensation over lookup_company_compensation or get_director_compensation, but the core usage context is clear.

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