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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses behavioral traits: it fans out across multiple sources, details what is returned (cik, company_name, recent_filings with pipeworx URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents with a sunset note and soft-fail behavior, news via GDELT->GNews fallback, LEI). This adds significant context.

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 informative and front-loaded with example queries, but it is somewhat verbose with a long list of examples and output details. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of the tool (multiple sources and outputs) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what information is returned and any limitations (patents sunset, no name support). It provides a complete picture for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 input schema already has descriptions for both parameters, but the description adds crucial meaning: 'Only "company" supported today' for type, and for value it explains ticker or zero-padded CIK and explicitly warns that names are not supported, directing to resolve_entity. This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It enumerates the specific sources and outputs, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance, including example queries ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme'), and states when to use: when the user asks for a holistic view. It also specifies when not to use by noting that names are not supported and directs to 'use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.'

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