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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns candidate matches rather than a single canonical record, and it clarifies that the data is factual, with no recommendations or price targets. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, each carrying essential information: the lookup action and scope, the slug output and routing instruction, and the factual-data boundary. It is front-loaded and free of repetition.

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 single-parameter resolver with a simple query schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what to pass, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the return value (slug candidates) is clearly stated.

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 parameter description already explains the query format. The description reinforces 'name, ticker or partial match' and scopes to Indian listed companies, but adds little beyond the schema's own documentation.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Find an Indian listed company by name, ticker or partial match,' and clearly identifies the output as candidates with a MarketPing slug. It differentiates itself from siblings like company_snapshot and search by positioning itself as the entry-point resolver.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this tool FIRST unless a slug is already held, because every other company tool requires a slug. This gives unambiguous when-to-use guidance and effectively routes the agent away from alternatives.

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