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

Annotations already cover safety with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that the data is quarterly and identical to the paid page's cash detail. It does not disclose return format or pagination, but those are less critical given the strong annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core resource and scope are front-loaded. The second sentence about the paid page is optional but adds a provenance signal without bloating the definition. The paid-page reference may be slightly opaque to an agent without that external context.

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 one-required-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description supplies the essential facts: what data is returned and for which company type. There is no output schema, so exact fields are not enumerated, but the high-level history terms are sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. No nested objects or enums add complexity.

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 fully documents the ticker parameter with an example and the one-company-per-call limitation at 100% coverage. The description does not add any new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the single-company scope. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 identifies a specific resource—quarterly cash, burn, and cover history for one ASX company—and is clearly distinct from sibling tools covering dilution, issuance, options, and raises. The tool name and title supply the verb 'get', making the operation unambiguous. It is concise and not tautological.

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 does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusionary conditions. The one-company constraint is noted, but the 'no batch form' detail lives in the parameter schema rather than the description. No comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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