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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true, so the description must carry the rest, and it does: anonymous vs keyed row limits, AS-REPORTED and confidence-gated values, the ambiguity of available=false (uncovered industry vs empty issuer vs outage), a no-retry directive, and provenance/caveat surfaced in tool_notes. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place (auth tiers, retry prohibition, panel shape). It is dense and slightly meandering in places, but no sentence is filler.

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 still enumerates the returned panel fields {ticker, industry, metrics, available, partial, total_metrics, period, as_of, provenance, caveat, ...} and explains the semantics of available/partial. It covers sourcing, auth behavior, and caveat delivery well enough to call 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents ticker with examples and even the no-cross-issuer rule. The description adds only the 'per-issuer by design' framing, which is already echoed in the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (industry OPERATING KPIs) and scope (ONE issuer) and illustrates it with concrete metrics (same-store sales, RevPAR, load factor, medical-loss ratio, net interest margin, TEU, rig count) sourced from SEC filings. That is far more than a restated name. It stops short of a 5 because the very close sibling ol_issuer_kpi_panel is never contrasted, leaving the agent to infer which per-issuer KPI tool to pick.

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 real usage context: anonymous callers cap at 3 rows while keyed callers get the full panel, and it explicitly warns not to retry with variations when available=false. It also states the per-issuer constraint. It lacks any named alternative tool for when a different KPI view is wanted, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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