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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, the specific event types returned, the 0-1 confidence score, and the relationship to derived signals. 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: return contents, event types, ordering, confidence semantics, buying-intent interpretation, signal provenance, and ID lookup guidance are all included without fluff.

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?

Given only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the necessary output contract: fields, ordering, allowed event types, confidence meaning, and how rows relate to signals. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining that the tool is scoped to a company and by pointing to tools for finding company IDs. The companyId parameter is effectively documented, but the optional limit parameter is not described in prose, leaving it to be inferred from the schema.

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 tool lists a company's classified news and registry events, with specific event types, newest-first ordering, and output fields. It is clear enough to be distinguished from list_company_funding_events by covering all event types, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding check_company_news sibling.

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 gives useful context about when the events matter (funding/leadership positive, layoff negative) and directs the agent to list_companies or get_company for company IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like check_company_news or list_company_funding_events, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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