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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the return payload, explains that 'compliant' is the overall verdict with null meaning 'needs a closer look', distinguishes 'debt_compliant', and discloses the borderline-within-one-percent flagging behavior. This is exactly the added context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence before listing return details, and the dense parenthetical clauses each carry distinct field semantics rather than filler. It is on the longer side for a single-parameter tool, but nearly every clause earns its place by clarifying output meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: the 'say' sentence, price, share count, filing figures, per-standard business screen and ratio/threshold/verdict, plus verdict semantics. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as accepting a symbol or common company name. The description's 'a company name (for example nvidia) also works' adds a concrete example but is largely redundant with the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Screen one company against all four standards'), and 'one company' implicitly distinguishes it from mizan_screen_portfolio. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so an agent infers the boundary rather than being told it.

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 framing 'screen one company against all four standards' implies the single-company screening use case, and 'four standards' signals it is the comprehensive path. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives such as mizan_screen_portfolio or mizan_list_standards; usage is only implied.

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