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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations: data sources (XBRL facts + verified filing extractions), the 'nothing is estimated' guarantee, and explicit staleness labeling for non-restated figures.

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?

Three sentences are used, and each earns its place: the first enumerates outputs, the second explains data provenance and staleness, and the third names the alternative tool. It is somewhat dense, but appropriately so for a complex data retrieval tool.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the agent will receive: program details, authorization figures, history fields (cash spent, shares, average price), and data provenance. The staleness label and explicit sibling reference complete the picture for a single-ticker read-only 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?

There is only one parameter, ticker, and the input schema already describes it clearly ('Stock ticker symbol (e.g., AAPL, MSFT)'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add specific parameter-level semantics, but none are needed given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource: a company's share-repurchase picture, including tracked programs, authorization figures, and repurchase history. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling GetAtmPrograms by naming the at-the-market mirror image.

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 final sentence explicitly directs the agent to GetAtmPrograms when ATM equity offerings are the focus, providing a clear alternative. It also gives context that figures come from XBRL facts and document extractions, helping the agent judge when this tool is appropriate.

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