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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it makes a single parallel call, handles fiscal year differences, returns sorted results with citation URIs, and discloses data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS). No contradictions.

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 focused paragraph that first gives natural language triggers, then purpose, then details. No wasted sentences; front-loaded and efficient.

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 the return format: paired data sorted by primary metric, with citation URIs per entity. It covers all important aspects of tool usage and behavior.

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%, but description adds rich meaning: for type, it specifies what data is pulled (financials vs regulatory); for values, it gives allowable formats (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug) and constraints (min 2, max 5).

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. It provides example natural language queries and differentiates from sibling tools like entity_profile by emphasizing multi-entity comparison.

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 instructs to always prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities, and states it replaces 8-15 lookups. Also explains the context for each type (company vs drug).

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