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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful content context (records contain consensus, dimensions, provenance, risk flags) but does not disclose behavior like data freshness, latency, or how missing tickers are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core value ('Everything the platform knows about one ticker in a single record') and end with a clear usage directive. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the record's composition and offers guidance on when to use it. It could be slightly more complete by specifying return type or error behavior, but the current content is largely sufficient given its simplicity.

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%--the single parameter 'ticker' is described with an example (AAPL). The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('composite signal for a ticker'). It enumerates what the record contains (cross-signal consensus, contributing dimensions, provenance, risk flags) and differentiates from siblings like get_consensus by framing it as the comprehensive 'everything' endpoint.

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?

Explicitly states 'Start here for any question about a specific company,' signaling a clear use case. While it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools instead, the 'start here' instruction implies a first-stop role and provides enough context for selection.

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