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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description adds only workflow framing, not behavioral detail such as pagination limits or the fact that a name search may return multiple matches. With annotations carrying the safety profile, 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before the usage hint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 five parameters, no required fields, a mutual-exclusion constraint, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but does not tell the agent what a result contains (ticker, CIK, name?) or how pagination behaves. It is adequate to invoke the tool, not to interpret its output confidently.

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%, so the five parameters (cik, ticker, query, limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema, including the mutual-exclusion constraint. The description restates the same three resolution inputs without adding format, precedence, or syntax detail. Baseline 3 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 names specific verbs and resources: resolve a ticker or CIK, or search companies by name. That is far more informative than the tool name alone and matches the title. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the resolver role is implicitly distinct from the data-fetch siblings, so it falls short of 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?

"Use it to find the ticker for other tools" gives a clear workflow context: this is a prerequisite lookup step feeding the other tools. There is no statement of when not to use it or which alternative to prefer for a given input, so it stops short of a 5.

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