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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond naming the 'shared market-data service' as the source; it does not mention response size, data freshness, rate limits, or the fact that this is an aggregate call.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists the tool's outputs without any filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes to defining the tool's scope.

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 read-only aggregate data tool, the description identifies the key output categories and the schema defines the parameters. However, since there is no output schema, the description could usefully explain how the returned quote, profile, fundamentals, and statements are grouped or limited by the `limit` parameter.

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 67%, with symbol and exchange already described in the schema. The description does not add meaning for the `limit` parameter or explain how it interacts with the annual/quarterly statements it mentions, so it fails to compensate for the one parameter not fully covered by 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the resources returned: quote, profile, fundamentals, and annual/quarterly statements. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings like company.profile and company.statements.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company.profile, company.statements, or market.quotes. It merely states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer when the aggregate 'financials' call is the right choice.

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