dd

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing threshold risk categories and the compliance tier requirement, providing behavioral clarity beyond 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 a single compact sentence followed by a clear threshold list. Every sentence earns its place, no fluff, and critical info is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input and risk categories. It lacks explicit return format details but is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little to the single 'ico' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It explains the tool's operation but not parameter specifics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 detects 'shell-firm hotel' patterns by counting shared addresses, with explicit risk thresholds. The title and description make the purpose unmistakable and differentiate it from sibling detection tools.

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 tool implies usage for address-based risk assessment, but fails to explicitly state when to use it over siblings like detect_nominee_director or detect_phoenix. No guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it returns an 'indicator-by-indicator breakdown with descriptions for compliance audit.' The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which are consistent. The description does not contradict 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes necessary details about indicators and output. While slightly lengthy, it is well-structured and every part contributes information.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter with high schema coverage, no output schema, but annotations present), the description sufficiently explains the return format (indicator breakdown) and context (compliance audit). It also notes tier requirements, making it complete for an agent to decide to invoke.

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% for the single parameter (ico), which is well-described in the schema. The description adds no further detail on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 detects nominee director patterns, lists 8 specific indicators, and explains the return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are different types of reports (risk, statutory chain, etc.).

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 mentions a tier requirement ('Pro Compliance tier or higher') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying data sources (ARES+ISIR), the three surface indicators, and access tier (Pro Compliance), complementing the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint 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 extremely concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the single parameter, clear output (PhoenixReport with riskScore 0-100), and annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 100% with a clear description of 'ico' as 'Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Detect' and resource 'phoenix company pattern', lists specific indicators, and distinguishes from a richer alternative (detect_phoenix_rich).

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 mentions when to use (for 3 surface indicators) and directs to detect_phoenix_rich for deeper analysis, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the report contents and differentiation between 'basic' and 'full' depth. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, required permissions, or typical response size.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds specific value, listing report components without redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all key report components (company facts, statutory body, sanctions, risk score, red flags). It explains depth options implicitly. Minor omission: no mention of return format or error handling, but acceptable for a moderately complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the existing schema descriptions. Both 'ico' and 'depth' are already well-described in the schema.

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?

Clearly states it generates a complete due-diligence report for a Czech IČO, listing specific components. The description differentiates from siblings 'get_risk_score' and 'get_statutory_chain' by offering a comprehensive report.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring only an IČO, or scenarios where siblings are more appropriate.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns GLEIF entity data (status, address, registration number) plus sanctions screening, coverage notes per country, and SME limitations. This transparency goes beyond the 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value (input format, output summary, coverage notes, tier requirement). Could be slightly more concise, but 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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values. It does so by listing GLEIF data fields and sanctions screening. It also mentions coverage notes and SME limitations. For a 2-param tool, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning: explains identifier accepts 20-char LEI or company name, and country narrows name search. This helps the agent understand the flexible input format beyond the schema's basic description.

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 generates an EU Due-Diligence report with GLEIF data and sanctions screening. It specifics inputs (LEI code or company name+country) and outputs. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dd_report by targeting EU and using GLEIF coverage.

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 provides clear input guidance (LEI code vs. company name, optional country), notes tier requirement (Pro Compliance), and warns about SME coverage. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like get_dd_report or get_eu_parent.

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

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

The description discloses the multi-step lookup (ARES then GLEIF), the return of a confidence level, and coverage limitations. Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavioral context without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, explains the process, then notes limitations and requirements. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains inputs, outputs, and limitations. It also mentions the tier requirement. Minor improvement would be to note if there are any pagination or rate limits, but overall complete.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% and the description of the 'ico' parameter ('Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits') aligns with the schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 purpose: finding the EU/international parent company for a Czech IČO. It specifies the process (ARES then GLEIF) and the outputs (LEI, name, country, confidence). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_phoenix or get_statutory_chain.

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 explains when to use the tool (for finding EU/international parents) and notes limitations (SMEs without LEI won't be found) and a requirement (Pro Compliance tier). While it doesn't explicitly exlude alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the return subset (score, risk level, red flags) and speed advantage, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or absence of side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence explains the comparison, the second provides the use case. Highly efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score, risk level, red flags). It also hints at performance characteristics. Minor gaps: does not define 'top triggered red flags' or format of risk level, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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 100% with a clear description of IČO as '7 or 8 digits.' The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 defines the tool as 'lightweight version of get_dd_report' that returns a numeric score (0-100), risk level, and top triggered red flags. This specific verb+resource combination, along with the sibling reference, distinguishes it from get_dd_report and get_statutory_chain.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Faster when you only need a yes/no/maybe screen.' It contrasts with get_dd_report, providing a clear alternative. No other guidance needed for this focused tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds behavioral details on event types (formation, appointments, insolvency, etc.) beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples and usage context. No redundant or wasteful 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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the timeline content and usage. It omits output format details but is sufficient given tool simplicity.

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?

The sole parameter ico is fully described in the schema (Czech IČO — 7 or 8 digits). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 builds a chronologically sorted lifecycle timeline for a Czech company, listing specific event types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_risk_score or get_statutory_chain.

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 specifies usage context ('For audit narrative and story so far reports') and a tier requirement ('Pro Compliance tier or higher'), providing clear guidance but lacking explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the recursive walk from the company through statutory persons to other companies up to max_depth, which is transparent. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and behavior, then provide usage context. Every sentence adds value 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?

While the description covers the tool's purpose and behavior well, it lacks an explicit description of the return format (the tree structure is implied but not detailed). Without an output schema, this gap reduces completeness for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the IČO format and mentions max_depth, but adds little beyond the schema's defaults and constraints. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 discovers the statutory chain (UBO-style tree) for a Czech IČO, using a specific verb ('Discover') and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_dd_report, get_risk_score) by focusing on chain discovery.

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 mentions suitability for KYC and shell-company unwinding, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would have elevated the score.

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