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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: sort order, factor score ranges, included flags, and the $0.25-per-call cost with a payment-required error for unpaid calls.

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 and front-loaded with the ranking behavior, then adds sibling routing, a disclaimer, and cost in order of importance. Every sentence earns its place with no tautology or fluff.

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 ranked-list tool with an output schema and comprehensive parameter schema, the description covers the ranking logic, result contents, payment behavior, and the main sibling alternative. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in detail. The description adds context about factor definitions and score ranges but doesn't need to restate parameter semantics; the schema carries the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Rank'), a resource ('US public companies'), and the exact ranking basis ('composite factor score') with factor details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from company_signal by naming the sibling, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It gives clear guidance to use company_signal when a single company's full scorecard is needed, which routes agents away from this tool in that case. It does not discuss other ranking/screening siblings like screen_companies, but the core alternative is covered.

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