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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context: rows come from company_financial_rankings with one row per scope, which goes beyond 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?

Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and return structure are front-loaded, followed by a concrete usage example.

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 read-only, idempotent ranking lookup with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key return structure (one row per scope) and scope values. It does not describe row fields or pagination, but the essential calling context is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining that each scope produces one row and by naming the scope values, clarifying the scope_type enum beyond the raw list in 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (company revenue rank positions) with clear scope: industry (PKD), region (voivodeship), and all of Poland. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_financials and get_company_* by focusing on rank positions and naming the underlying ranking table.

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 says to use it for questions like 'where does company X rank in Poland / its industry / its region?', giving clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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