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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it joins multiple live data sources, returns a 0-100 score where higher means lower risk, and emits a decision_hint mapped to specific credit actions. It does not disclose failure modes or data freshness details, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the business question, then the composite inputs, then the output semantics, then the profile variation. Each sentence adds substantive information, though the middle sentence packs multiple clauses and enumerated values that could be slightly easier to parse.

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 complex composite tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the output shape and score direction. However, it leaves gaps: the risk_profile values are not explained, include_filings is never mentioned, and there is no guidance on what happens when domain or ticker cannot be resolved.

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 only 50%, with risk_profile and include_filings effectively undocumented in the schema. The description only says the tool 'supports four risk profiles for different underwriting postures' without explaining the individual enum values or the effect of include_filings, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 an explicit business question ('should we extend terms to this company?') and names the tool as a counterparty-risk composite producing a score, tier, and decision_hint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling data-lookup tools by tying the output to concrete AR/AP actions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('should we extend terms') and mentions four risk profiles for 'different underwriting postures'. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the credit-decision framing is a sufficiently clear usage context.

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