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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the failure semantics (available=false means no verified row and ABSENT provenance keys; unreachable store is REFUSED with DATA_UNAVAILABLE), a provenance staleness caveat for rows generated before 2026-09-13, and the free/first-party sourcing. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before the return-shape and caveat detail, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. It is dense and backtick-heavy, which slightly impedes scanning, but there is little genuine waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields (summary, available, business_summary, short_summary, provenance), explains the summary-vs-content distinction, and covers failure modes and a known data quirk. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly 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?

Only a single 'ticker' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description says 'for a ticker' but adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a first-party business summary for a ticker sourced from the SEC annual report, with exact form/item references (10-K Item 1, 20-F Item 4). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ol_filing_search ('For semantic passage retrieval over the full filing corpus use ol_filing_search').

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?

Names a concrete alternative (ol_filing_search) and the condition that selects it, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of a full when/when-not treatment (e.g., no guidance on when to prefer get_company_profile-style siblings or caching), so it is clear context without complete exclusions.

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