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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. Description adds context: handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts by primary metric, returns citation URIs. No contradictions. However, does not mention any potential rate limits or error handling.

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?

Well-structured with actionable examples first, then details. Slightly long but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but front-loaded effectively.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: entity types, count limits, data sources, sorting, and output format (paired data + URIs). No output schema exists, but description compensates well.

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 enriches meaning by explaining enum values (company vs drug) with data sources, and provides examples for the values array. Goes beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, with specific verb (compare) and resource (entities). Distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile by replacing sequential lookups.

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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and provides trigger examples like 'compare X and Y'. Clearly indicates use case and preference over alternatives.

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