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

Clearly describes scope, inclusion criteria ('announced, still-upcoming'), ordering ('soonest first'), and output content (commitment source and track record). No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it is transparent but doesn't mention pagination/limits beyond the schema.

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 short sentences convey scope, sorting, content, and filtering in a clear order; 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?

A read-only list tool with no annotation contradictions; description covers content, scope, sorting, and filter dimensions. Minor gap: it doesn't mention includeUndated behavior or how results are bounded, but schema covers those.

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?

Description adds only 'filter by company or industry', which maps to two of the four parameters; it doesn't explain limit or includeUndated beyond what the schema already documents. With 100% schema coverage, this is adequate baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a clear object ('announced, still-upcoming milestones'), along with scope ('across all tracked companies'), sorting ('soonest first'), and content (commitments, source, track record). It clearly signals a cross-company listing view distinct from a single-company detail tool.

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?

States when to use it ('forward-looking view: what each company has committed to next') and mentions filters, but does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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