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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (identity and classification fields) and explicitly stating 'No prices and no fundamentals at all,' which prevents misuse. It also notes the input flexibility (either ticker or cik), but does not discuss potential error cases or rate limits—though these are not critical given the annotations and simple nature of the tool.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose with the field list, then adds the negative scope (no prices/fundamentals), and finally gives concrete usage examples. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters, and it has an output schema (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the input alternatives, the data scope, and typical use cases. Nothing is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (ticker and cik). The description adds the semantic nuance that the tool accepts either ticker or cik, implying they are alternatives rather than both required. This clarification goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and helps the agent understand the relationship between the two parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving identity and classification data for one company. It enumerates specific fields (name, ticker, cik, sector, etc.) and explicitly excludes prices and fundamentals, distinguishing it from financial data tools. The mention of resolving a ticker to cik also sets it apart from sibling tools like get_financial_filings.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to resolve a ticker into the cik that the filings tools accept, or to confirm what sector a company is actually classified under before comparing it to peers.' This clearly states when to use the tool and gives an alternative purpose. It also implicitly states when not to use it (no prices/fundamentals).

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