FREE quick signal scan for a target business: distress/liability counts + a one-line go/caution/stop verdict, with no per-item detail. The teaser a buyer runs on a listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Target business name (required). | |
| state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it's free, quick, and returns a summary without per-item detail. However, without annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or data limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences plus a tagline, 34 words, front-loaded with key purpose and output. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with no output schema and 2 params, the description provides essential context. However, it omits parameter details (state) and potential limitations. Adequate given the tool's simplicity but could be more complete.
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 covers one parameter (name) with description. The description adds context about the scan's purpose but does not explain the 'state' parameter. With 50% schema coverage, description should compensate more.
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?
Description clearly states verb (scan), resource (target business), and output (distress/liability counts and verdict). The phrase 'teaser a buyer runs' implies it's a preliminary step, differentiating from siblings like diligence_brief which likely provide full detail.
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?
Implied usage as a quick teaser before full diligence, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings. The description provides context but not robust guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but ch11_feed and ch11_preview both target Chapter 11 filings, with the difference being paid vs. free details. This could cause confusion if descriptions aren't read carefully.
Naming is inconsistent: two tools use 'ch11_' prefix, but the rest mix verb_noun (check_recall_exposure), noun (diligence_brief), and adjective_noun (quick_scan). No consistent pattern.
Five tools is well-scoped for a distress diligence server, covering bankruptcy filings, recalls, and a comprehensive brief without being excessive.
The tool set covers core distress signals (bankruptcy, recalls) and a composite brief. Minor gaps like a standalone lawsuit or WARN search exist but are partly addressed by the diligence_brief.