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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose and gives no information about the nature of the data (e.g., real-time, historical), potential performance characteristics, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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, compact phrase with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids any fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool that returns rankings. It does not explain the output format, how the ranking is determined, whether it returns a list, any filtering or sorting behavior, or what data is included. Without an output schema or additional context, an agent cannot anticipate the result structure.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since there are no arguments to configure. The schema is empty, and the description does not contradict it.

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 resource: 'Cornerstone investor rankings' and the dimension 'by IPO involvement'. This is a specific, distinct tool among siblings like get_buyback_ranking or get_sponsor_ranking. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes the ranking (e.g., amount invested, number of IPOs) and does not differentiate itself from other ranking tools beyond the subject matter.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling ranking tools. An agent has to infer from the name and context.

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