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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: that the response aggregates 9 sources and embeds specific lookback windows (6mo sentiment trend, 12mo insider activity with cluster detection, revenue CAGR). It does not flag cost/latency of aggregating 9 sources, which is the main remaining gap.

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-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then the component list. The 9-source enumeration is long but each item is informative and earns its place; no filler or tautology.

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 formatting needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the composite-source scope and time windows, which is what an agent needs to choose this over the many single-metric IR siblings; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Only one parameter (ticker) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics including NZX examples. The description's phrase 'for an NZX company' marginally reinforces the exchange scope but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get a comprehensive Investor Relations dashboard for an NZX company') and enumerates the 9 component data sources, which tells the agent this is a composite view rather than a single metric. It does not name the overlapping siblings it supersedes (e.g. get_ir_quality, get_announcement_sentiment, get_substantial_holders), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives an audience ('Built for IR teams, institutional investors, and analysts') rather than a when-to-use condition. The composite nature implies it is the right choice when a broad IR overview is wanted instead of individual data points, but no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given.

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