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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the two-snapshot-plus-change-flags return structure, but that return shape is already captured by the output schema, and it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or data freshness windows.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the usage triggers, so an agent can stop reading early. The long parenthetical enumeration of change dimensions is somewhat redundant with the output schema's change flags, but it is not 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, return shape, and usage triggers adequately. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the many change/briefing siblings in this toolset, which the description does not address.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("NZX ticker symbol (e.g. 'AIR')"). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema already documents the input.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get a per-company IR briefing") with the change-detection behavior stated up front. It enumerates the exact change dimensions (governance score, board size, chair, CEO, sentiment, independence, ownership concentration, insider direction, auditor), so the agent knows the scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely overlapping siblings such as get_company_changes, get_board_changes, get_ir_dashboard, or get_ir_quality.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: "Use when asked what changed for a company, company intelligence briefing, or IR briefing." This is clear positive routing guidance. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, which matters here because get_company_changes and get_ir_dashboard plausibly serve the same request.

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