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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are 'cited' (evidence included) and numeric direction is kept separate from economic beat/miss. It still says nothing about pagination, the limit cap, or the effect of includeRevisions.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core resource content is front-loaded and the separation caveat follows. It is efficient, though the second sentence's meaning is not fully self-evident.

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 an 8-parameter, filter-heavy tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it never explains the date filters, the limit cap, metric matching, or revision behavior, leaving an agent unable to invoke it accurately beyond the required symbol.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at the accounting 'basis' enum ('currency, scope and accounting basis') and at date concepts, leaving from/to/asOf semantics, limit, metric, and especially includeRevisions completely undefined.

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 precisely characterizes the resource: cited management guidance ranges, issue dates, raises/cuts versus prior guidance, and later actuals on matching period/currency/scope/basis. It is clearly a guidance-history read tool, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like company.financials or company.kpis, so the agent gets no explicit disambiguation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the text. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the resource description.

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