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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: combines public-data signals from specific sources (CourtListener/PACER, CPSC, OFAC, etc.), returns structured brief with risk/opportunity flags, includes a cost model ($0.50 USDC settlement) and a disclaimer to verify independently. This covers key behavioral traits beyond minimal expectations.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists data sources in parentheses. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 the complexity (multiple data sources) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid overview of returns (brief with flags) and limitations (verify independently). It could further detail the output structure, but it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and data sources.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds meaning: explains that 'state' sharpens WARN/UCC/registration and 'domain' is for the record header. This clarifies the practical impact of each parameter, adding value beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: 'Generate a distressed-SMB DILIGENCE BRIEF for an acquisition target.' It details the verb (generate), resource (brief), and context (distressed-SMB acquisition). It lists specific data sources (lawsuits, bankruptcy, recalls, sanctions, layoffs, liens) differentiating it from siblings like 'check_recall_exposure' or 'quick_scan'.

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 states required inputs ('Pass the business name + optional US state and domain') and implies usage for acquisition due diligence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings. The mention of 'free quick-scan included' hints at a simpler option but lacks direct guidance.

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