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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint — search is bounded to the ValuEdge-supported security universe — but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or match counts.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the when-to-use condition is front-loaded ahead of the scoping constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the usage trigger and the closed-universe constraint. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is nearly complete, missing only matching/limit behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does clarify that the single query parameter accepts either a company name or a ticker and may be ambiguous. It omits the length bounds and any matching syntax, so compensation is only partial.

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 action (resolve an ambiguous company name or ticker) and a concrete resource (securities), which is more precise than the bare title. It is distinguishable from siblings like screen_stocks or get_stock_valuation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them by name.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: use when the user supplies an ambiguous company name or ticker and resolution is needed before valuation or comparison. This routes the agent correctly, but it stops short of naming alternates (e.g. screen_stocks) or stating when-not to use it.

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