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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the matrix is an evidence substrate and explicitly disclaims any ranking or materiality judgment, which is a genuine behavioral scope statement. It does not disclose rate limits or failure modes, but with rich annotations a 4 is appropriate.

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 core action and resource, then the return shape, then a scope disclaimer. It is efficient and non-redundant, though the middle sentence is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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?

The tool has a rich output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description; the description still summarises the three evidence categories returned. With 13 parameters and a complex cross-company alignment task, the description covers purpose, output shape and scope limits, but does not clarify edge cases such as behavior when a company lacks the topic or how forms interact across incomparable issuers.

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 schema already documents all 13 parameters including identifiers, topic, forms, limit and comparison limits. The description does not add parameter-level syntax, defaults or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (align) and resource (a disclosure topic across two to six public companies), and it explicitly names the output artifact (a cross-company disclosure matrix backed by source-supported historical lineage). This distinguishes it from siblings like build_disclosure_lineage (single-company lineage) and compare_filings (pairwise filing comparison).

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 explains the tool is for upstream agents that would otherwise retrieve, parse, align and re-compare every filing history, which implies the intended workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like build_disclosure_lineage, compare_filings or build_evidence_pack, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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