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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the useful behavioral context that the tool returns a ticker for use in other tools, but it doesn't disclose details like result limits, exact matching behavior, or what happens with ambiguous prefixes. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core function, and the second explains the practical purpose. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple search tool with one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return value's purpose (ticker for other tools) but doesn't specify the output format or whether multiple results are possible. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents the query parameter as 'Company name or ticker prefix.' The description repeats this information but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct 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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('companies Quantral covers'), and the search dimensions ('name or ticker prefix'). It also explains the purpose of the tool: to get the ticker that per-company tools expect, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on a specific 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to get the ticker that per-company tools expect, which implies it is the entry point before calling siblings like get_company_recaps or get_company_score. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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