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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it fans out across multiple sources, mentions the USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 (soft-fails), and details the return structure including URIs and sorting. No contradictions with 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 about 150 words, slightly long but well-structured: starts with example queries, then states purpose, then details outputs. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return data (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI). It covers edge cases (name not supported, USPTO soft-fail) and references sibling tool resolve_entity. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains that type is only 'company' for now, that value must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and that names are not supported. Provides examples. Baseline 3 is exceeded due to added context.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call', lists multiple data sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from chaining single-pack lookups by explicitly preferring this tool for holistic views.

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 clear usage examples ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme'), states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and notes that names are not supported, advising to use resolve_entity first. It also mentions soft-fails for USPTO API.

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