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

readOnlyHint already covers the no-mutation safety profile, and the description adds the canonical-company behavior and sequencing context. However, it does not disclose ambiguity handling, coverage limits, or any other operational behavior beyond what the annotation and purpose already imply.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and input forms, and includes useful usage examples. The only minor redundancy is 'Args: query', which repeats the schema and does not add much.

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-parameter, read-only resolver with an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, accepted input forms, and when to use it. No hidden parameters, enums, or nested-object concerns exist.

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 schema provides only the name 'query' with 0% description coverage, so the description fully carries the parameter meaning. It explicitly says the query may be a ticker, company name, or CIK, which is exactly what the agent needs to populate the single parameter.

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 ('Resolve') and resource (ticker, company name, or CIK) and defines the outcome as the canonical company. It also positions the tool as a pre-step before other tools, which differentiates it from the sibling data-retrieval tools.

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 explicit trigger questions ('which company is X', 'what's the ticker for X', 'is X listed') and says to run it before other tools. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for correct routing.

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