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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds useful limitations about coverage depending on public sources, a price note, and a legal-use disclaimer. It does not explain edge behaviors like missing data handling or latency, but the output schema and annotations carry some of that burden.

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 reasonably short and uses labeled sections, which aids scanning. However, the 'Use when' line is a verbatim duplicate of the first sentence, making it redundant. The limitations and price sections are useful and earn their place, but the redundancy keeps this from being a tightly written definition.

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?

The tool has three parameters, one required, and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it leaves parameter semantics unexplained and provides no sibling differentiation within a large family of company_fr_* tools. An agent selecting between benchmark, peers, compare, and competitors would need more context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does not define identifier, scope, or peer_limit. While peer_limit can be inferred from 'public peers' and scope enum values are self-explanatory, identifier type and meaning are unclear beyond the regex pattern. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 benchmarks a company against public peers and lists the specific metrics used (revenue, net income, growth, margin). This is a specific verb+resource combination that conveys the core function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like company_fr_peers or company_fr_compare, which could plausibly overlap.

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?

There is a 'Use when' section, but it merely repeats the main benchmark sentence and adds no new routing information. The 'Avoid when' section only addresses legal, regulated credit, and fraud-free decisions rather than identifying when to prefer an alternative tool. No guidance is given for choosing between company_fr_benchmark, company_fr_peers, or company_fr_compare.

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