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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait: a coverage ratio is included to avoid misleading completeness. However, it omits other behaviors like whether results are limited to IDs or full records, pagination, or return format. The coverage warning is valuable but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds important context. It is concise but slightly lengthy; breaking into two sentences could improve readability. Still, no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output includes a ranked list and coverage ratio, which is helpful. However, it does not specify the ranking order (presumably descending), what fields are returned per company, or how the coverage ratio is calculated. It covers the main point but not all details.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the parameter roles (optional restrictions) but adds no new semantic details beyond stating the coverage ratio, which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool ranks top N companies by market cap with optional filters (segment, country, market_position) and notes a coverage ratio is attached. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like filter_companies or rank_by_connectivity.

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 provides context about when to use this tool (for ranked market cap lists) and includes a warning that 28% of companies lack data, implying the coverage ratio is important. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list makes differentiation clear.

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