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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond these: it fans out to specific data sources, returns a structured result with sources_used/sources_failed, soft-fails on the USPTO API sunset, and clarifies that empty sections mean genuine absence of data. It also documents resolution behavior for private companies and interchangeable type values.

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 long but dense and purposeful. Every clause carries functional information: what sources are queried, what each output section contains, how to interpret missing data, and how to pass parameters. The structure flows from high-level purpose to output detail to parameter semantics, and each sentence earns its place. It could be slightly tightened but is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry full responsibility for return values — and it does, listing every return section (cik, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, etc.) with specific content and ordering. It also covers failure modes (sources_failed, private companies, API sunset), expectations about empty sections, and fallback chains (GDELT→GNews). For a tool of this complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that both type values behave identically, showing the value shapes with concrete examples (ticker, CIK, name), and describing how name resolution works via SEC EDGAR. It also clarifies the resolved:false note behavior for private companies, which the schema does not convey.

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 opens with concrete example queries and states the core purpose explicitly: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It names the resource (US public companies) and the action (build a comprehensive cross-source profile), clearly distinguishing itself from single-purpose siblings like resolve_entity or compare_entities.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also covers edge-case usage for private companies and unresolvable names, explaining what the tool returns instead of failing. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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