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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly lists the data categories returned and provides a working example, which covers the key behavioral aspects for a read-only retrieval tool. It stops short of detailing error handling or data freshness, but the core behavior is well described.

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 only two sentences plus an example, with the main purpose stated up front. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main use case, lists the return fields, and gives examples. Given the low complexity (single parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete, though it could have elaborated on the meaning of 'health signals' or mentioned what happens for an invalid slug.

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 schema already documents the 'slug' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds examples of valid slugs but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PropScore, health signals, rules, plans, promos, and editorial notes for one firm'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_firm_rules or compare_firms, which have narrower or comparative scopes.

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 'Use this before broad Q&A when the user names a single firm,' providing a clear usage context. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for specific rules use get_firm_rules'), so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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