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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it runs sources in parallel, reports sources_used/sources_failed, treats empty sections as real 'no data' rather than errors, and returns resolved:false with a notes line for private companies. The patent soft-fail note is the kind of operational detail an agent needs.

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 information-dense, with the core purpose and routing rule front-loaded before source/output details. Minor redundancy exists because it repeats the type interchangeability that the schema already states, but every other sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, this is unusually complete: it enumerates returned fields (cik, company_name, resolved_from/to, recent_filings URIs, fundamentals items, each source section) and edge cases. An agent can predict both normal results and failure modes before calling.

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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage; the description adds the nuance that type 'company' and 'ticker' are interchangeable, gives concrete examples (AAPL, zero-padded CIK, Moderna), and clarifies name resolution via SEC EDGAR. This makes correct value construction easier than schema alone.

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?

Describes exactly what it does: returns a full cross-source profile of a US public company from SEC, XBRL, patents, contracts, FDA, H-1B, news, and GLEIF. The opening examples ('Tell me about X', 'company profile for Microsoft') make the intended invocation unmistakable and distinguish it from narrower single-source tools.

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 agents to prefer this over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when a holistic view is requested, which is strong routing guidance. It also covers input forms and the private-company fallback, so an agent knows when the tool can still be used rather than aborting.

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