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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about share-count dates not aligning with quarter end and tag variability across filers, which are important data quality caveats beyond the 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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and limitations without unnecessary detail, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what is summarized and notes key caveats, though it could explicitly mention the return format or structure.

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 single parameter 'company' is fully described in the schema with accepted formats (ticker, name, or CIK) at 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already handles it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 summarizes SEC-tagged common shares outstanding, approximate year-over-year share change, and equity issuance proceeds. It also explicitly differentiates itself by noting it is not a fully diluted capitalization table, distinguishing it from related 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?

The description implies usage for dilution-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company_financials or get_liquidity_runway. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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