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

The description discloses extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations: it fans out across multiple sources in parallel, soft-fails on the USPTO sunset, distinguishes between expected empty results and errors, and reports sources_used/sources_failed. It also explains resolution behavior for names, tickers, and CIKs. 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 long but appropriately so given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose and routing guidance, followed by structured detail about sources and return fields. A few sections are dense, but every part contributes necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values, and it does: it lists every return section (cik, company_name, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, etc.) and clarifies edge cases like empty fda_products for small-molecule-only companies and private-company resolution. Everything an agent needs to correctly call and interpret the tool is present.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with useful descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating that 'type' accepts 'company' or 'ticker' interchangeably and that 'value' can be a ticker, CIK, or company name, with names resolving via SEC EDGAR. This is a meaningful enrichment, though not a large leap 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 the tool's purpose: a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call' with numerous example queries. It also distinguishes itself from alternative approaches by explicitly saying to 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' when a holistic view is requested.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also clarifies when the tool is not appropriate, such as private companies returning resolved:false with a notes line, and explains that empty sections are real 'no data', not failures.

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