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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and states the aggregation scope, but says nothing about whether group_by affects the output shape, what statistics are computed, whether results are cached or expensive, or what the response looks like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely tight — a second clause on the aggregate output or grouping behavior would have earned its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value information, and it omits what statistics are returned, the shape of grouped output, and any read-only or performance expectations. Inadequate for a tool whose structured metadata is this thin.

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 100% for the single group_by parameter, including its enum of risk_band, size_class, and trajectory. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions grouping or how the grouping changes results — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('aggregate market statistics') with an explicit scope qualifier ('across all companies in the database'). The aggregate framing clearly separates it from per-company siblings like lookup_company or compare_companies, though no sibling is named.

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 scope phrase 'across all companies' implies when this tool is the right choice (market-wide rollups rather than individual company lookups), but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no pointer to compare_companies or search_companies for alternative needs.

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