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

Beyond the read-only/destructive annotations, the description adds substantial transparency about data integrity: figures are exactly as disclosed, Total is the filer's own figure (never recomputed), and the tool states the newest proxy on file to surface stale coverage. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 concise but information-dense, with three well-structured sentences. Each sentence adds value: output specification, data integrity caveat, and coverage limitations. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description fully explains the return content (salary, bonus, awards, etc., per executive per fiscal year, newest first). It also covers coverage limitations and data quality indicators, making it complete for a data retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (ticker and maxYears are both documented). The description adds some context about year ordering and the 'newest year first' behavior, which aligns with maxYears, but it does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves named-executive compensation from DEF 14A proxy statements' Summary Compensation Table, listing components and per-executive/per-year granularity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like GetExecutiveChanges, which deals with changes rather than compensation.

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 important usage context by specifying coverage is limited to US DEF 14A filers and noting the data is back-filling, which guides when to use it. It also implies the tool is for compensation data, not other executive-related data, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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