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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it performs three internal HTTPS reads, rejects invalid tickers before fan-out, and preserves partial results if a required issuer leg fails. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline and informs the agent about failure modes and side-effect-free operation.

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 dense sentences that front-load purpose and usage. Each sentence provides distinct information, but some redundancy with annotations (read-only, idempotent) could be trimmed. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity and well-structured.

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 with multiple internal calls and an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: what it includes, what it excludes, failure behavior, and usage intent. The presence of an output schema handles return-value expectations, so no gap is evident.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well (ticker normalization, output_mode compact-only). The description reinforces this but adds little new semantic detail beyond linking ticker to the composite plan. The schema carries the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is a read-only composite workflow for a fast single-ticker sanity check, specifically running readiness, covenant_stress, and alpha_signals. It distinguishes itself from the full company-report payload and sibling tools by naming the exact sub-checks it bundles, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use context (user asks if one ticker is clean, stressed, actionable, or needs deeper diligence) and explicitly states what is excluded (fundamentals, peer ranking, SPECTRA), implying alternatives. It stops short of naming specific alternative tool names but gives enough contextual guidance.

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