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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no behavioral context: it doesn't mention whether the scan is expensive, what the default scope/universe is, how results are returned, or any side effects. The schema comments cover some of this (e.g., 'universe' being expensive), but the description itself carries no extra behavioral information.

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 extremely short (one clause), which might seem concise, but it fails to front-load the purpose. Instead of stating 'Find overheat candidates' it offers a vague characterization of the output. The single sentence does not earn its place because it communicates almost nothing actionable.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns (list of symbols? scores?), what the default behavior is (e.g., scope='both'), or how to interpret the results. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the description alone. The lack of any output format or usage context makes it inadequate.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are quite detailed (e.g., maxScore explains its role and PRO-only nature). The tool description adds no parameter-related meaning, but since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, this is acceptable. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not actively mislead or conflict with 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?

The description is a noun phrase ('Companies that have grown faster than results justify') rather than a statement of the tool's action. It does not explicitly state a verb like 'find', 'list', or 'scan', nor does it name the resource it operates on. It conveys the output criteria but not the operation itself, making it hard for an agent to know what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., find_dip_candidates, find_opportunities, find_tlh_opportunities). The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent has no basis for selecting it among the many screening tools.

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