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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful non-obvious context: this is a paid $0.50 USDC x402 call, it draws on SEC EDGAR and sanctions screening, and it returns a three-value posture. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the product type and output posture, then lists data sources and price with no filler. Every clause contributes selection-relevant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core output, input scope, data sources, optional peer parameter, and cost. It does not detail the brief's exact structure or how the posture is derived, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents id as ticker or CIK and peer as optional comparison ticker or CIK. The description's mention of 'optional peer comparison' only restates what the schema already says, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 produces an 'Investment diligence brief' with a CONSTRUCTIVE/NEUTRAL/CAUTION posture for a public company, and enumerates the fused data sources: financial-health, insider activity, optional peer comparison, and issuer sanctions screening. The 'bundle' framing distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this one-call tool when you need a fused diligence view of a public company. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and does not name sibling alternatives, so the agent must infer selection from the bundle description.

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