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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 50 companies per page and, critically, that totals aggregate across every company rather than the current page. The data source and 'free data' note add provenance an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short provenance clause; the resource definition is front-loaded and nothing is buried. The AlphaGrowth attribution is marginal but small enough not to count as bloat.

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 no-required-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is returned, the page size, and the important caveat that totals are global. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 page parameter is fully documented there, so the schema carries the load; the description's '50 per page' merely restates the schema and offers no extra paging semantics such as max page or out-of-range behavior.

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 states a specific resource with concrete scope: public companies holding crypto on their balance sheet, plus the exact metrics returned (market cap, NAV, mNAV, holdings per token). It implicitly separates itself from the DAO-treasury siblings by emphasizing 'public companies,' though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied – an agent can infer this is the lookup for corporate crypto treasuries, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not route to dao_treasuries or chain_metrics for the adjacent questions those tools answer.

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