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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the returned payload is identical to the paid card, parser-compatible across paid cards, and invalid tickers return a literal not_a_sample sentinel. No contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: completeness guarantee, free sample set, parser compatibility, recommended use case, and invalid-input behavior. The core promise is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, which inputs are valid, why the response is trustworthy, and what happens on failure. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the ticker and family parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by guaranteeing identical schema and field names for all paid cards and by specifying the exact invalid-ticker sentinel, which helps an agent reason about the ticker parameter's behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns one complete quarterly card, and specifies the exact free samples (AMD fy2026-q2, MRVL fy2027-q2) and families. It explicitly contrasts with the paid route and clarifies this is not a trimmed preview, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: use as a zero-cost integration test before paying for coverage. It also names the paid route as the alternative and sets a clear boundary: any non-sample ticker returns not_a_sample.

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