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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns CSV with specific columns, returns JSON candidates for ambiguous input, and provides raw announcement text rather than parsed corporate-action details. This goes well beyond the 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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose and distinguishing detail are front-loaded, the alternative tool is named clearly, and the output format is stated compactly. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only tool with a single required parameter, this is complete: the schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover safety, and the description covers the return format, ambiguous-input behavior, and relationship to the closest sibling tool. No missing information would prevent correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value for the symbol parameter by noting typos are tolerated and that ambiguous input returns candidates requiring the user to pick one, with instructions to call again with the exact symbol.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get general CSE company disclosures for a symbol' and enumerates concrete examples (board changes, AGM/EGM notices, listings, suspensions, name changes). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_corporate_actions, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit routing guidance: for dividends, rights issues, or share splits, use get_corporate_actions instead, with a reason (structured detail vs raw announcement text). It also explains what to do when the symbol input is ambiguous, covering both normal and edge-case usage.

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