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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: a hard cap of 10 results, the returned fields, that empty means uncovered, and that results carry no scores.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the match semantics and result cap; the trailing clause about empty results and absent scores is high-value and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (primary ticker, name, country, description, link) and the 10-item cap. Nothing needed to call this single-parameter tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description's 'name or ticker prefix' restates the schema's own parameter description almost verbatim, adding no new syntax, length, or matching-rule detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single fully-documented 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?

States a specific verb (matches) and resource (companies Quantral covers), plus the matching key (name or ticker prefix) and the result shape. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_company_score or get_company_signals, which operate on an already-resolved company.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the empty-result note ('the company is not covered') tells the agent how to interpret a miss, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to siblings such as using this to resolve a ticker before calling get_company_score.

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