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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes further by disclosing non-obvious edge semantics: a company lacking the filtered figure is NOT treated as below threshold but surfaced in `notComparable` with a reason. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 sentences, zero filler: purpose and filter set first, usage trigger second, edge-case return semantics last. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and covers the most important non-obvious part (notComparable plus reason). It is nearly complete for a 9-param tool, though the shape of the main comparable result list is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3. The description's '40% / 60%' example usefully reinforces that margins and growth are passed as fractions, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents for each 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 (filters) and resource (tracked companies) plus the exact filter dimensions and sort behavior, which cleanly separates it from enumerating siblings like list_companies and single-entity siblings like get_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?

Explicitly says when to use it — 'when the user asks which companies meet numeric criteria' — and reinforces with a concrete example (

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