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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/scope profile is covered. The description adds the 'live filters' hint and the 'including Fortune China 500' scope note, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth needs. Useful but modest context on top of 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the dimensions, with no filler. It is dense but efficient; nothing obvious to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for an 8-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and a nested filters object, the description omits valid list/year values, filter syntax, and pointers to the sibling discovery tools, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conceptually maps to all eight parameters (list, year, search=company name, filters, sort_by/sort_order, limit/offset), which is genuinely useful, but gives no accepted values, formats, or syntax for list slugs, years, sort fields, or the nested filters object.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Fortune ranking list) and enumerates the searchable dimensions (list, year, company name, filters, sorting, pagination). It is clearly the query tool among the fortune_ranking_* family, but it does not explicitly name its sibling helpers (fortune_ranking_lists, fortune_ranking_years, fortune_ranking_filters) to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. It never points the agent at fortune_ranking_lists/years/filters for discovering valid list slugs, years, or filter keys, which is exactly the ambiguity a caller faces with 0% schema coverage.

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