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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the specific data sources and the 'unified report' behavior, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, response format details, or error handling. Overall, it provides some context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the composite nature and the list of sources. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a clear list delimiter. Every word contributes to the understanding, making it an exemplar of efficient writing.

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 composite tool integrating five sources, the description gives a high-level overview but omits details about the report structure, how sources are weighted or combined, and any prerequisites (e.g., whether company_name is needed for all searches). While the schema and annotations fill some gaps, the absence of an output schema makes the 'unified report' phrase vague. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for tickers, company_name, and github_query. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics, merely implying the use of tickers via 'Stooq quote data'. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any gaps but also does not need to.

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's function as a composite financial intelligence extractor, listing five distinct data sources and indicating a unified report output. This differentiates it from siblings like extract_finance or extract_reddit by emphasizing the combined multi-source nature. The lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'Fetches') is minor given the tool name and the source enumeration.

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 implies usage for situations requiring comprehensive multi-source financial intelligence, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over simpler tools like extract_finance or provide exclusions. The '5-source unified report' phrase gives context that this is for aggregated insights, not single-source queries. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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