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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists what the tool returns, includes a methodology reference link for deeper transparency, and implies a read-only behavior through 'risk intelligence.' It does not explicitly state side effects, but for a data lookup tool this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and outputs, the second gives target users and a methodology link. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists all return categories (risk tier, trust signals, data coverage, methodology reference). It gives a clear use case and a link for further details. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but the schema and use case cover most needs.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds contextual context only in the phrase 'for any agent,' which loosely relates to agent_id. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: providing counterparty risk intelligence for an agent, with specific outputs (risk tier, trust signals, data coverage, methodology reference). This is distinct from sibling tools like address_age or trust_check, which focus on different risk dimensions.

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 explicitly targets a use case: 'Designed for marketplace operators and escrow providers setting transaction parameters before a deal.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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