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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the question is recorded along with all call arguments and is used to prioritize what to add, plus that results are ordered most-relevant-first. It does not describe the shape of the returned entries, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then triggers, then parameter guidance — a sensible order. The clause about recorded arguments and the support-email sentence are slightly rambling for a two-param tool, though the recording note does carry real information.

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 two-optional-param helper with an output schema, nothing material is missing: purpose, triggers, both parameters, result ordering, and privacy/recording behavior are all covered.

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 full burden: it defines question as the user's need in their own words with concrete examples ("institutional ownership of SPY", "Risk Factors of a 40-F") and tool_name as the tool that fell short, with a sample value. Both optional params are fully explained.

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?

"What the beatandraise.com tools cover, where they stop, and what to use instead" gives a specific verb+resource (coverage/limits guidance) that no sibling tool provides. It is immediately distinguishable from the lookup tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are listed: a tool returned nothing, returned an error, returned less than needed, or no tool exists for the request. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs to route here instead of retrying a failing sibling.

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