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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds significant behavioral context: how off-calendar fiscal years are handled correctly for companies, sorting by primary metric, return of paired data and citation URIs, and efficiency (replaces 8-15 lookups). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with example queries, then clearly states the core action, then details per type, sorting, return format, and efficiency. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 adequately covers return format (paired data + citation URIs) and behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact fields returned for each type, but the efficiency claim and data source detail make it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's value.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining exactly what data each type pulls: for company, latest 10-K revenue/net income/cash/debt; for drug, FAERS counts/FDA approvals/trial counts. This enriches parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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 performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call, with specific examples of use cases like 'compare X and Y' and 'rank these companies'. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile by emphasizing comparison over sequential lookups.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing strong guidance on when to use. It gives examples of queries that trigger this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use, e.g., for a single entity profile. Still highly useful.

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