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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the evidence tier (public only), that answers carry exact source citations and a signed receipt, and that the tool can refuse when evidence is insufficient. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint=false or openWorldHint=false. It does not address cost, latency, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key behavioral guarantees. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description does some work by describing the answer shape (cited, signed receipt) and the refusal case, which is the right priority. However, it omits the company identifier format and any indication of what a refusal response looks like or what the caller should do next, leaving real gaps for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. It never says whether 'company' is a name, ticker, domain, or ID accepted by find_company, nor does it explain the question format or why questions are capped at 1000 characters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: ask a listed company a question, and characterizes the answer as evidence-backed with citations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_company or get_trust_profile, but the verb 'ask' makes the intent clear enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus find_company or get_trust_profile, and no prerequisites stated. It is unclear whether the company must first be resolved via find_company, or when the caller should expect a refusal rather than attempting the call.

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