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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates it. The real value is the disclosed return behavior: candidate cap of 10, per-candidate coverage and score fields, null scores with an accompanying reason, and a distinguishing message when nothing is in coverage. That is meaningful behavioral context given no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and bound, then the return shape, then the empty-result behavior. Only the trailing 'Read-only' is wasted since the annotation already carries it.

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 explaining returns and does so for the main cases (candidates, null scores with reasons, no-coverage outcomes, app link). A small gap remains around ordering or how to pick among multiple candidates, but the tool is simple enough that little else is needed.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'q' with examples. The description's 'company name or ticker' phrasing matches rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a company name or ticker to candidates') with a concrete bound ('up to 10'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby search_tickers or screen_companies siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only implied: the tool is for turning a fuzzy name or ticker fragment into candidate entities, presumably before calling get_company_snapshot or get_stock_score. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_tickers when…' guidance and no stated prerequisite or exclusion.

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