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

The description goes beyond the read-only annotations by detailing data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), off-calendar fiscal year handling, sorting by primary metric, and citation URI returns. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with examples, then provides structured details about behavior, data sources, and return format. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers both entity types, the return format (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and the efficiency gain (replaces 8–15 lookups). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying exactly what metrics are pulled for each type (revenue, net income, cash, long-term debt for companies; adverse-event counts, approval counts, trial counts for drugs), which helps agents choose the 'type' parameter and understand the consequences.

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 that it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and 'pulls', and distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups by explicitly preferring this tool for comparisons.

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' and provides a list of query examples (e.g., 'X vs Y', 'rank these companies'). This gives the agent clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative approach (sequential lookups).

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