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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the matching semantics (name or partial ticker, example) and coverage scope (US filers with SEC filings). It does not contradict 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?

The description is compact (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: definition, usage guidance, and coverage scope. No filler or redundancy.

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 relatively simple lookup tool with an output schema available, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and its scope. It does not need to detail return values since an output schema exists. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds an illustrative example ('coca cola' finds KO) that clarifies the acceptable query format and partial matching behavior, going beyond the schema's literal field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Resolve a company name or partial ticker to covered companies,' with a concrete example ('coca cola' finds KO). It also distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by positioning it as a precursor: 'Use this before the other tools when you have a name rather than a symbol.'

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use the tool: 'Use this before the other tools when you have a name rather than a symbol.' This implies the alternative (using other tools directly when you have a symbol) and also sets expectations with 'Coverage is US filers with SEC filings.'

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