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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about data sources and the returned fields, but doesn't disclose any extra behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements, which would push it higher.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by key details. No wasted words; every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly lists all return components (overall score, tier, verdict, sub-scores, tech-stack hint, SEC summary). It also explains the tuning by buyer profile and the optional filings parameter. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it lacks edge-case or error-handling details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions buyer_profile values and include_filings, but the schema already explains these. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 computes a composite B2B buyer-signal score (0-100) for a company, specifying the data sources (identity, SEC EDGAR, DNS/DMARC, WHOIS, hiring signals) and the output. This distinguishes it from siblings like compliance_signal or company_enrich by focusing on buyer intent.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is for (buyer signals tuned by buyer_profile) and its output, making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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