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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real context beyond them: the currency is never converted, data tiers differ ('latest slice for all tiers; full history Pro (never a 403)'), and the exact row shape including verbatim quote and source URL. It could still say more about pagination or date-range behavior, but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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 'USE THIS / DO NOT USE / Filters' structure is front-loaded and scannable, and each section earns its place. The opening sentence is dense with parentheticals, but the information density is justified for a nine-parameter tool.

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 usefully enumerates the returned row fields, and it covers sources, currency, tiering, and citation. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained date-range parameters, which an agent would have to guess at from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full load. It documents five of nine parameters with genuine meaning (company with its enum values, metric with an enumerated list beyond the schema's bare string, segment, fiscal_period, limit as max rows), but the date-range parameters to/from/since and the all flag are never explained. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 names the specific resource (WFE order-book disclosures from ASML, AMAT, LAM, KLA, TEL), the exact metrics captured (bookings, backlog, segment revenue, guidance), and the currency convention. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_fab_capacity and get_foundry_economics, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS for' examples ('is the equipment order-book turning up or down?', ASML bookings trend) sit directly beside a 'DO NOT USE for' block naming the two competitors and the cases that select them. Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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