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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavior of 'one point per report period,' which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens when guidance data is missing, how the aggregate is computed across periods, or the exact output format. It does not contradict the 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail on the output without becoming verbose.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret the score. It only says 'aggregate score' and 'one point per report period,' leaving ambiguity about the return type (e.g., number, object) and handling of edge cases like no data. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about how symbol, start_timestamp, or end_timestamp affect the aggregation. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 computes an aggregate score comparing company guidance to reported actuals, with one point per report period. This conveys a specific verb (aggregate) and resource (guidance vs actuals), and it conceptually distinguishes from sibling tools like list_guidance or list_guidance_outcomes, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_guidance or market_signal. The description implies it is for scoring, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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