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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the 0-100 scoring scale, the prediction window, the composition of the 8-factor model, and the market-wide vs single-company modes.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and horizon before the factor list and the special parameter value. The factor enumeration is dense but informative; nothing is wasted.

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-value formatting need not be described. For a single-parameter read-only prediction tool, the description covers purpose, model basis, and the market-wide mode, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the single ticker parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's "all" hint duplicates what the schema already states, so it adds no semantic value over structured data; 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 (Score), resource (NZX company), output scale (0-100), and the prediction horizon (next 12 months), plus the full 8-factor basis. It is clearly distinguishable from historical siblings like get_capital_raises, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to differentiate itself.

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 only usage instruction is "Use ticker 'all' for market-wide rankings," which is a parameter-value hint rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or which sibling to pick for a related question, so usage is only implied.

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