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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It adds real value beyond that: the return shape (integrity score + severity-ranked flags) and, unusually, a pricing/rate-limit note ($0.50/call after free trial), which an agent needs for cost-aware invocation.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the check list first, then the return/cost note. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers output shape and cost, but for a tool whose only input is an unconstrained nested object with no schema documentation and no output schema, the definition should describe the expected financials payload. That is the one material gap.

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% and the sole parameter is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema conveys nothing about its contents. The description partially compensates by naming check categories that imply needed inputs (tax rates, EBITDA/EBIT, historical CAGR, capex, working capital), but it never states required fields, expected granularity, or structure.

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 (validate) and resource (company financials) and enumerates the exact checks performed (tax-rate sanity, EBITDA/EBIT bridge, growth continuity, capex ratio, working-capital stability). This breadth of named checks makes it obviously distinct from siblings like company_report or deal_score without opening their schemas.

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 phrase 'institutional validation pass' implies the context (due-diligence-style integrity check) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools such as company_report or deal_score. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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