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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: for company type, it pulls latest 10-K data with correct fiscal year handling; for drug type, pulls FAERS counts, FDA approvals, trial counts. Also explains result sorting by primary metric. 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 a single, well-organized paragraph. It front-loads with example queries and key instruction, then details for each type. While every sentence adds value, slight conciseness improvement (e.g., splitting into shorter sentences) could be made.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, data sources for each type, result ordering, and output format (paired data + citation URIs). No missing context given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema.

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% (2 parameters fully described). The description enriches parameter meaning: explains that 'type' determines data source (company vs drug) and 'values' expects tickers/CIKs or drug names with examples. This exceeds schema documentation.

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's purpose: side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It provides specific verb-resource pairs (compare X and Y, rank these companies) and distinguishes from sequential lookups, fully differentiating from siblings.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and gives clear when-to-use scenarios (comparison queries like 'which is bigger'). Provides examples of natural language triggers, making usage unambiguous.

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