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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by revealing data sources, output semantics, profile-dependent tuning, and the decision-support boundary. It does not fully describe edge cases such as unknown companies or data freshness, but those are less critical given the existing annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, uses a clear output list, and ends with a scannable scope warning. Every sentence provides selection- or invocation-relevant information, with no wasted words.

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 names the key return elements and decision_hint values, which is essential and mostly sufficient. It could specify more about critical flags and resolution behavior when multiple identifiers are provided, but the core invocation information is present and openWorldHint supports partial or unstructured responses.

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 75% and the schema already explains company/domain/ticker resolution. The description adds meaning to buyer_profile by enumerating the tuning contexts (kyc_onboarding, vendor_diligence, regulated_industry, marketplace_listing), which the schema only lists as an enum. It does not add much beyond the schema for the identifier parameters, so not a 5.

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 opens with a specific 'Compliance-status snapshot for a company' and names concrete data sources (Treasury OFAC SDN, SEC enforcement) and output fields (0-100 score, tier, decision_hint, critical flags). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sanctions_search or company_signal by emphasizing a scored snapshot rather than raw search or general enrichment.

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?

It states when to use the tool (decision-support compliance snapshots for company screening) and explicitly scopes out formal KYC or licensed sanctions screening, which is a clear when-not. It also ties usage to specific buyer profiles, indicating the contexts in which the tool is tuned.

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