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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints that the payload contains no figures ('nothing here needs evidence'). It does not state that this is a non-destructive read, nor does it describe size, ordering, or whether the list is paginated or exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary fact (all firm slugs and names) front-loaded. The second sentence is compact but somewhat cryptic about what 'evidence' refers to, costing it a point.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what comes back but omits ordering, size, and the read-only nature. Adequate for invocation, thin on context an agent might want.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless full enumeration with no filtering options.

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 exactly what the tool returns (every firm slug and name), which is a clear enumeration resource and implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_firm. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the returned content is unambiguous.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_firm, and no condition that would route an agent between enumerating all firms and fetching one. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Every'.

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