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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the data structure (quarterly vs half-year filers, period_months indicator, operating-only net flow averaged per quarter) and that results are identical to the paid page. This goes 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful reference point (paid page). Every word contributes, and the structure is efficient.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong sense of what data to expect: specific rows, period_months semantics, and operating-only net flow. It does not describe the exact output structure, but the coverage is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and call it correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ticker' with a clear description, including the note that there is no batch form. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cash, burn and cover history' for one ASX company. It enumerates the exact data rows (4C/5B, 4D/4E) and notes it matches the paid page's cash detail, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_dilution_snapshot or get_options.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tool or state conditions for selection. The specific scope ('cash runway') implies usage, but without exclusions or comparisons, an agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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