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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so there is no contradiction. However, the description itself discloses no behavioral detail beyond the tool's basic purpose—nothing about what a 'run' is, whether results are static snapshots, or what the output structure looks like.

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 a single declarative sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is immediately readable and front-loaded, earning its place by stating the core purpose without verbosity.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned ranking contains, the meaning of a 'published run', or how the category filters affect ordering. The schema fills the parameter gaps, but the overall context remains incomplete.

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 parameters are already well documented. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema descriptions (e.g., category sorting behavior, minAdvPLN defaults) compensate fully, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 names the resource (WSE/GPW companies) and the general operation (ranking by a selected criterion). It is clear enough to distinguish this from non-ranking tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ranking tools like get_ranking_performance or rank_revenue_growth.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the 'published run' mechanism, when a dateKey is needed, or how category selection changes the ranking, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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