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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and inclusion of citation URIs. It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured, starting with trigger phrases, then function overview, per-type specifics, sorting, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 the rich input schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: data source details, sorting behavior, and citation URIs. It does not specify exact return structure but is adequate for a comparison tool.

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 enriches parameter meaning: for 'type', it details what each enum value retrieves; for 'values', it gives examples, constraints, and entity-specific formats. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 entities (companies or drugs) in a single call. It includes trigger examples like 'compare X and Y' and 'which is bigger', and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces sequential single-pack 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?

The description explicitly advises to 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' It also provides specific input triggers and conditions for use, such as comparing companies or drugs.

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