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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds detailed behavioral context: data sourced from SEC 10-K filings, PIT-safe via as_of_date, explains R&D inclusion (informational, excluded from total to preserve cash-flow identity), and describes pre-computed flags (buybacks_exceed_fcf, total_returns_exceed_fcf, debt_funded_distribution). No contradictions.

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 the core purpose and key features. While it is long (nearly 300 words), each section contributes value: use case list, R&D nuance, and flag details. No fluff, but slight verbosity prevents a top score.

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 three parameters, an output schema, and annotations providing safety hints, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, data source, behavioral details, parameter context, and output shape (via flags). It is fully complete and leaves no major gaps.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the lookback_years default rationale ('full capital allocation cycle'), the as_of_date point-in-time safety, and how ticker identifies the company. It goes beyond baseline but not extensively.

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 the tool provides a multi-year capital allocation breakdown across six categories (capex, R&D, M&A, dividends, buybacks, debt) with pre-computed ratios and over-distribution flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_financial_ratios by focusing specifically on cash deployment and management decisions.

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 lists user queries that should invoke this tool, such as 'how does a company allocate capital', 'what's the buyback-vs-dividend mix', 'is the company over-distributing', and 'where does the money go' questions. It provides clear when-to-use guidance without needing alternative tool references.

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