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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (FINA statutory filings), a default reporting year (2024), that filtering is range-based, and that results can be sorted and paginated. It does not describe the return shape, what a result row contains, result ordering guarantees, or performance characteristics of a 28-filter query.

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 what the tool is and what it filters, followed by a compact RULES block. Every sentence is functional; the only minor inefficiency is that the metric list partially duplicates the schema. No filler or redundancy otherwise.

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 28-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, sorting, pagination, and the data source, but never describes what the returned records look like or what fields come back. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on the result shape would materially complete the definition.

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 every parameter, and the description's enumeration of filterable metrics (revenue, operating income, net profit, assets, liabilities, equity, PBT, EBITDA, solvency ratios) largely mirrors the schema. It adds no units, currency, or range-format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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+resource: a 'financial screener and discovery engine for Croatian companies based on FINA statutory filings.' It is clearly differentiated from single-company getters like get_company_financials by being a multi-company discovery tool, but it never names a sibling (e.g. search_companies) to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 RULES line gives a precondition ('If screening criteria are not provided, interview the user first') and a constraint ('Never invent financial thresholds'), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no alternatives or when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance, so the reader must infer that this is the tool for multi-criteria financial filtering rather than keyword search.

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