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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by detailing what data is pulled (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), how fiscal years are handled, and that results are sorted by primary metric. 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 a single paragraph but packs essential information efficiently, including usage examples, data sources, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses bold for emphasis, though it could be broken into multiple sentences for readability.

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, the description adequately explains return format ('paired data + pipeworx:// citation URIs'). It covers input constraints (2–5 entities), data freshness, and sorting, making it fully self-contained and suitable for agent use.

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%, with both 'type' and 'values' documented. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'values' expects tickers/CIKs for companies and drug names for drugs, and provides examples (['AAPL','MSFT'], ['ozempic','mounjaro']).

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, with example queries like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies', and explicitly distinguishes from sequential lookups. This provides a specific verb+resource and avoids ambiguity.

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 sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It also lists exact phrasing triggers (e.g., 'which is bigger') that indicate appropriate usage.

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