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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds rich context: for companies it pulls revenue, net income, cash, debt from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with correct fiscal year handling; for drugs it pulls FAERS, FDA approvals, trial counts. It explains sorting by primary metric and returns paired data with citation URIs.

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 front-loaded with example queries and concisely states purpose, data sources, sorting, and efficiency gains. Every sentence is informative, but could be slightly more structured. Still appropriate for the complexity.

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 explains return format (paired data + citation URIs), data sources, sorting, and parameter constraints. It fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: explains that 'type' determines data source (company vs drug) and that 'values' should be tickers/CIKs for companies or drug names for drugs, with examples. This is beyond the schema's enum and array description.

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 explicitly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call, with clear examples like 'compare X and Y'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups' and mentions it replaces 8-15 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 strongly advises using this tool for comparing multiple entities over sequential lookups, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for single entity lookups). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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