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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that payout stats are included 'when available,' which signals potential missing data. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, side effects, or error behavior. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but this is not made explicit.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific data types. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no wasted or redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers the returned data categories. Since there is no output schema, it gives an overview of available fields (payout speed, transparency, payout stats) and notes the conditional nature. It could be more detailed about return formats, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'slug' parameter, described as 'Firm slug.' The description adds 'for one firm,' which only slightly reinforces the schema. It does not explain slug format, constraints, or how to obtain valid slugs beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource as 'payout-related intelligence for one firm,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_firms or get_firm_score. It further details the data types (payout speed, transparency, payout stats), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_firm_score or compare_firms. The purpose implicitly suggests use for payout intelligence, but it does not state preferred contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer if it should select this over others.

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