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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context beyond that by enumerating what is returned (absolute score, sector-adjusted score, percentile, per-dimension sector average) and by justifying the adjustment ('Mining companies naturally hedge more'). It stops short of auth/rate-limit or pagination detail, but for a read-only analytical tool this is solid supplemental disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output contents, then the interpretive rationale, then the usage trigger. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 an output schema present, the return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still conveys what the tool yields and when to reach for it. For a one-required-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already documented in the schema with examples (FPH, AIR, SPK). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 (get) and resource (sector-benchmarked disclosure language analysis) and explicitly distinguishes the output from a plain disclosure score by emphasizing sector-benchmarking, sector-adjustment, percentile, and peer comparison. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_disclosure_language or get_disclosure_score without opening a schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions: 'Use when asked about how a company's disclosure language compares to its sector peers, or whether hedging/opacity is normal for its industry.' This is clear context for when to use it, though it does not name the alternative (e.g. get_disclosure_language for absolute-only scoring) or state 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.