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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds complementary behavior: matching by name or ticker prefix, a result limit of 10, and confirmation that no scores are returned. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: when to use, what it returns, and what it does not return. The usage condition is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers when to use, matching logic, result limit, and the absence of scores. It does not explicitly list return fields, but the stated purpose ('need the ticker') implies the ticker is included, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 query parameter is already described as 'Company name or ticker prefix.' The tool description repeats this and adds matching behavior, but it does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter itself. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'matches companies Quantral tracks by name or ticker prefix and returns up to 10.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns no scores and is a precursor to per-company tools, so an agent can readily identify it as a lookup/discovery tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need the ticker for a company name, or to check whether Quantral covers a company, before calling the per-company tools.' It also redirects: 'It returns no scores; use get_company_score for those.' This gives both a clear when-to-use and a specific alternative.

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