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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only methodological context (sector-relative percentile ranking, composite grade), not behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or freshness.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs the six dimensions into a compact parenthetical list, with two short supporting sentences. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies scope and grading methodology, leaving only sibling routing unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the ticker format with examples. 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 and resource (A-F factor grades for an NZX company) and enumerates the six graded dimensions with their underlying metrics, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_alpha_score or get_factor_model, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 description says what the tool returns but never says when to reach for it versus alternatives like get_alpha_score, get_factor_model, or get_governance_scorecard, nor does it state any prerequisites. No when-to-use or when-not guidance is present.

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