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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by requiring get_database_schema and get_query_patterns to be called first in order, and by stating it can be combined with other workflow tools. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered tools.

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 with front-loaded purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Covers what the workflow includes, when to use it, required prerequisites, and combinability with other tools. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. For a zero-parameter workflow loader, this description is fully complete.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline score of 4 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's function: 'Load fundamental workflow for valuation, cash flow, margins, balance sheet.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling workflow tools like load_technical_workflow and load_earnings_workflow.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('when the user asks about company valuation, "is X a good buy", financial health...'), directs to call before writing SQL, specifies prerequisite order (get_database_schema then get_query_patterns), and notes combinability with other workflows. This is thorough guidance for when to use this tool.

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