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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail (roles acted, deal details included) but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements for a tool with no such disclosure elsewhere; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Four clean sentences, front-loaded with the returned entity and scope before the use cases. The 'Includes deal details (amount, type, date) and adviser roles' sentence is somewhat redundant given a full output schema, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to establish scope and intent, which it does ('professional advisers who advised on capital raises and takeovers for an NZX company'). It omits how results are scoped per ticker versus market-wide, a minor gap.

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% and each of the three parameters already carries its own description and example values. The description only echoes the filterable facets (deal type, adviser roles) without adding syntax, defaults, or combination rules beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (professional advisers: law firms, investment banks, valuers for an NZX company) and enumerates the roles returned, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes the tool from generic company data tools, though it does not explicitly separate it from near-neighbours like get_adviser_market_share despite claiming 'adviser league tables' as a use case.

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?

Gives clear positive contexts — 'deal intelligence, adviser league tables, or capital markets analysis' — which an agent can match against an intent. There are no exclusions or conditionals pointing at sibling tools (e.g. get_capital_raises, get_takeovers, get_adviser_market_share), so routing between them is left to inference.

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