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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it works without a key, has a ~20 calls/day rate limit, and reveals a contract detail (the JSON key max_dilution_pct remains stable). It also notes it mirrors the free company page, implying a specific data source. These details go beyond the annotations and aid an agent in understanding runtime behavior.

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 a compact two-sentence structure with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and metrics, the second conveys the contract note and auth/rate-limit details. Every sentence carries essential information, and the purpose is front-loaded. This is an efficient, well-organized description.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what metrics are returned, the contract key, auth requirement, rate limit, and data source. It lacks explicit units or formatting for the metrics (e.g., currency for market cap), but that is not critical for invoking the tool. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% – the ticker parameter already has a clear description ('One ASX ticker code, e.g. BHP. One company per call — there is no batch form.'). The tool description reiterates 'one ASX company' but adds no new syntax or format details. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds no extra meaning, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('get') and a clear resource ('dilution snapshot for one ASX company'), then enumerates the exact metrics returned (risk level, cash cover band, market cap, 12-month raise count, options & rights overhang %). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_cash_runway or get_options without naming them.

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 clarifies the tool's scope ('headline dilution metrics') and notes it mirrors the free company page, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_issuance_timeline or get_raise_history. The '~20 calls/day' hint suggests a lightweight snapshot, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are provided. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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