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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the score range (0-100), the measurement basis (social-conversation across tracked public sources), the caveat that it's not a price prediction or investment recommendation, and the inclusion of a tier word. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 about 120 words, which is somewhat longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place: it covers usage, return content, caveat, default, parameter mapping, and alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and structured logically. Not excessive, but not as tight as a two-sentence example.

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 read-only list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: when to use, what it returns (score and tier), the measurement meaning, the default limit, how to adjust the limit, and the alternative for single companies. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional clarification.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds practical guidance beyond the schema: it explains how to map the limit parameter to the user's request (1 for the single top name, 10 for a longer list) and reinforces the default of 5. This enhances the schema's static definitions.

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 clearly states the tool returns companies ranked by Quantral's social-conversation signal score, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_company_score for a single company. The verb 'get' plus resource 'top signals' is specific and the intended use case is defined.

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?

The description opens with explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when the user asks...'), then provides a clear exclusion ('For one specific company use get_company_score instead') and even gives limit-matching instructions based on the user's question (1 for top name, 10 for longer list). This is exemplary.

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