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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: long instrument books fold into the maturity wall, bucket expands one slice, and include_matured defaults to false. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but with no output schema and a read-only tool, the description carries the burden well.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the tool's purpose, then explains the key parameter semantics in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and the optional-parameter guidance is compact and unambiguous.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the required input, the optional parameters, and the key behavioral nuance (folding into maturity wall). It could mention what the response looks like or whether results are paginated, but the description is strong enough that an agent can call it correctly without further context.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between bucket and the maturity wall, and by clarifying that node_id is the graph node id from search_companies hits, not the entity_id. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 a precise noun phrase ('The debt surface of one company') and enumerates the distinct sections: registered charges, listed debt instruments, filed debt position facts, derived aggregates, a maturity wall, and per-section coverage states. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_financials (financial statements) and company_profile (general company data).

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 explicitly states the required input ('Takes node_id, the graph node id from search_companies hits') and clarifies it is not the entity_id of company_profile. It also gives concrete usage guidance for optional parameters: pass bucket to expand a maturity slice, and include_matured true to list matured instruments. This is actionable and complete.

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