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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: 30-90 second runtime, 50 internal data sources, 5-phase pipeline, and the synthesized report shape. It doesn't say whether results are cached or whether long runs can fail/timing out.

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 verb and pipeline shape, then capabilities, then cost, then routing guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 heavyweight long-running pipeline tool, the description covers cost, data breadth, and output format, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The one missing piece is disambiguation from the closely named get_deep_research_qa sibling.

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%, so ticker, question, and template are already fully documented with an enum. The description only loosely reinforces the 'company' target and says nothing about how a 'question' focuses the pipeline or how template choice changes output, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Run a comprehensive 5-phase agentic deep research pipeline on a company') and enumerates exactly what it gathers (fundamentals, governance, market position, dividends, recent events). Scope and output form (McKinsey-style structured investment report) are concrete enough to distinguish it from single-dimension siblings like get_financials or get_governance_scorecard.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for 'deep-dive, multi-faceted research requests where the user wants a thorough analysis,' which is a clear positive trigger, and the 30-90 second cost signal implicitly steers quick lookups elsewhere. However, it never names the nearest alternative (get_deep_research_qa) or states when not to use it.

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