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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds scope details (types of indicators covered) and mentions 'periodic changes' but does not describe any side effects, rate limits, or auth needs. Given the tool is a read-only query, the additional context is moderate.

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 well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, lists exclusions, details specific indicators, then provides typical questions. It is informative without being verbose, earning its place in each sentence.

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?

Given an output schema exists (though not shown), the description focuses on scope and exclusions, and provides practical examples. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and boundaries for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds typical examples of company names and countries, reinforcing usage, but does not elaborate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool queries periodic changes in enterprise risk aspects related to debt defaults, liabilities, credit records, and frozen accounts. It specifically identifies the resource (company) and the risk categories, distinguishing it from other enterprise_change_* siblings by its focus on credit/debt risk.

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 provides usage context by stating it queries by specific company name, and explicitly lists exclusions (not for full credit reports, not for tax violations, and not for batch screening). Typical questions are given, which clarify appropriate usage. It does not name alternative tools but the boundaries are clear.

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