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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial extra context — $25.00/call after free trial, ~60s latency, SEC-verified grounding with per-field filing citations, and the crucial trust distinction that `context` is caller-asserted rather than verified. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped inputs, cost and latency. The eight-lens enumeration is long but earns its place by defining the report's depth. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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 and a nested, undocumented `market` object, the description carries a heavy burden and mostly meets it — purpose, optional inputs, provenance/trust model, price, and runtime are all covered. Only the ticker format and the full set of accepted market keys are left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives a concrete example shape for `market` ({"price": 12.34, "market_cap_m": 5000}) and explains that `context` holds caller-supplied deal materials. Ticker is left implicit, and the open-ended `additionalProperties: true` on `market` is only partially bounded by the example keys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('institutional analysis of a US-listed company') and enumerates the eight analytical lenses plus executive synthesis, which concretely defines scope. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sec_extract or deal_score, which are narrower operations.

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 when certain inputs are useful ('optionally pass market to enable valuation views') but never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as sec_extract or validate_financials, nor when not to use it. Usage guidance is only informally implied through the cost and latency notes.

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