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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds strong operational context: parallel fan-out, soft-fail sources, sources_used/sources_failed, resolved:false for private companies, and interchangeable type values.

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?

Information-dense and mostly front-loaded with user intents and the core preference directive. The later source-list paragraph is long and somewhat run-on, but every clause carries substantive behavior; only minor trimming would improve it.

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?

With only two documented parameters and safety annotations present, the description provides everything an agent needs: accepted value shapes, output sections, failure semantics, and source behavior. No output schema exists, yet the returned fields are described in enough detail to interpret results.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including the enum and value-shape descriptions. The tool description reinforces examples and interchangeability, but doesn't need to add meaning because the schema already fully documents parameters.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: producing a full cross-source profile of a US public company, immediately distinguishing it from single-source lookups and sibling tools like compare_entities or resolve_entity. The examples and 'ONE parallel call' clarify exactly what the tool is for.

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?

It explicitly states when to prefer it: any holistic 'tell me about X' request, and ALWAYS over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups. It also handles edge cases (private companies) and notes expected empty sections, giving clear invocation context.

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