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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does add one genuinely useful trait: the score is AI-generated from fundamentals and competitive positioning, implying a subjective estimate rather than a raw figure. It omits permissions, determinism/caching, rate limits, and how to interpret the 1-5 output, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the purpose and scale are front-loaded, and the origin of the score follows as supporting context.

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 one-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description covers the scale range but gives no anchors for what 1 versus 5 means and does not describe the response shape, which is fair game absent an output schema. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the single parameter (symbol) is documented with an example ticker, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (évalue) and resource (avantage concurrentiel / economic moat) and even gives the scale (1 à 5), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_intrinsic_value and get_management_score. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops 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?

The description says what the tool computes but never says when to reach for it versus analyze_stock, get_intrinsic_value, or get_management_score, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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