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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral details: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and citation URIs. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with practical query examples, minimizes fluff, and every sentence conveys essential information. It efficiently packs purpose, usage, data sources, and behavioral notes without 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return format ('paired data + citation URIs') and sorting. It could be more explicit about the exact fields or structure of paired data, but it covers critical aspects for agent invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter descriptions by specifying what each type pulls (company: revenue, net income, etc.; drug: adverse events, approvals, trials), providing examples of valid values (tickers, drug names), and noting constraints like max 5 items. This adds significant value.

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 comparisons of 2–5 companies or drugs, with explicit verb-resource mapping and coverage of specific data points. It distinguishes from sequential lookups and implicitly from sibling tools like entity_profile by emphasizing multi-entity comparison.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example phrases ('X vs Y', 'rank these companies') and instructs to prefer over sequential lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for single entity queries) or mention specific sibling tool alternatives.

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