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

The description does not mention side effects, permissions, or safety properties. The only annotation is openWorldHint, with no readOnly or destructive hints. The description adds scope clarity but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the query is read-only). Given the annotation gap, a score of 3 reflects that the description adds some behavioral context but leaves important aspects unspecified.

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 but somewhat repetitive. It states the risk categories in the first paragraph, then repeats them in the list of indicators, and provides examples in a third block. This redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains organized and not overly verbose.

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 that an output schema is indicated (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It thoroughly explains the tool's scope (what risks are covered and excluded) and provides usage examples. It lacks details on edge cases or behavior when data is not found, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Thus, it is mostly complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters (company_name and country_name) with concrete examples. The tool description reinforces the meaning by stating it is based on a specific enterprise name and includes example queries with varying countries. This fully clarifies the parameters and their formats, exceeding the schema's minimal coverage.

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's function: querying enterprise change legal compliance risk based on company name. It explicitly lists specific risk categories (labor arbitration, major litigation, executive compliance, pending lawsuits) and contrasts with excluded categories (dishonest, abnormal operation, tax arrears), distinguishing it from related sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance (for legal compliance risk queries) and when-not-to-use guidance (not for other risk types like dishonest or tax violations). It also includes typical query examples, making it very clear for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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