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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: vesting progress is 'resolved as of now,' and it specifies the exact data carried for founder/advisor/employee vs. investor entries. This gives the agent a precise expectation of the resolved output without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details and a use-case example. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition of annotations. It is information-dense and perfectly sized.

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?

Given the rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential context: what data is returned, how it is grouped, the temporal resolution of vesting, and typical use cases. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use this tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter companyId ('UUID value wrapper'), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not mention parameters, but since the schema is exhaustive and the parameter is straightforward, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'returns a company's equity holdings grouped the way a founder thinks about them: founders, advisors, employees (option grants), and investors.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like cap_table_get_cap_table_overview or cap_table_get_list_cap_table_securities by the conceptual grouping and the included fields.

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 description says to 'Use this to answer "who holds what" or "how much of X's grant has vested" without adding up securities by hand,' providing clear use cases. It implies this is the go-to for aggregated equity views, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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