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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by listing what the response contains and clarifying that it returns facts rather than advice. It says nothing about data freshness, behavior for an invalid or delisted ticker, or field-level caveats (e.g., currency of market cap), which keeps it at an adequate rather than rich level.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short disclaimer; the returned-field list is long but each item defines scope and helps an agent decide relevance. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering identity, classification, market data, and multi-horizon price returns. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema itself supplies an example ("Ticker symbol, for example AAPL"). The description never mentions the ticker parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Returns a company's basics") and then enumerates the exact contents — description, sector, industry, HQ, listings, market cap, shares outstanding, dividend yield, price returns, 52-week range. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like get_company_score or get_company_signals, which are analytical rather than descriptive, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for cases like scoring, signals, or screening (e.g., search_companies). The closest thing to guidance is the closing "Facts, not a recommendation," which signals the tool is descriptive rather than advisory, but that is a framing note rather than routing guidance.

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