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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), fiscal year handling, result sorting by primary metric, and inclusion of citation URIs. This exceeds what annotations convey.

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 packed with information but slightly dense. It is front-loaded with example queries and ends with key output details. Every sentence adds value, though readability could be improved with line breaks.

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 returns: 'paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity' and sorting behavior. It covers complexity of comparing multiple entities across two types with specific data fields, making it complete for an agent.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining what data each type pulls (e.g., 'latest 10-K revenue + net income' for company) and providing examples (tickers vs drug names). This adds value beyond 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 the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, with specific verbs like 'compare', 'rank', 'head to head'. It distinguishes from sequential lookups by explicitly saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and gives example phrasings. It covers when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, though the context is clear.

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