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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it fans out across multiple data sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), describes return fields (cik, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI), and notes that patents may soft-fail due to API sunset. This goes well beyond the 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 somewhat long but well-structured with a bulleted list of return values. Examples are front-loaded, which helps the agent quickly understand the tool's scope. A few sentences could be trimmed without losing meaning, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (cik, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted by period_end, patents with caveat, news fallback, LEI). It covers input constraints, data sources, and known limitations. For a complex tool, this is highly complete.

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 schema already describes both parameters (type and value) with enums and examples. The description reinforces that type is only 'company' and value can be ticker or CIK, and reiterates that names are not supported. While it adds useful context, the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It provides numerous example queries and distinguishes itself from chaining multiple single-source lookups. The verb 'profile' and resource 'US public company' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also clarifies when not to use: 'names not supported (use resolve_entity first).' This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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