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

Annotations declare it as a read-only, open-world lookup, and the description adds two things the annotations do not: the score is rule-based with explanations and explicitly not a credit rating, and the call consumes credits. Those caveats materially affect how an agent interprets and budgets the call. It stops short of saying whether results are cached or what happens for unsupported registration numbers.

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?

One dense sentence listing the payload, followed by two short qualifiers for the score's interpretation and the billing cost. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant caveats are 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (debts, reliability, insolvency, score plus reasons), which is exactly the burden it should carry. The remaining gap is sibling routing (risk score vs financial statements) and the size of the credit cost, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (regNo with per-country formats, country with an enum) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Enumerates the specific data returned: state debts, tax reliability, insolvency proceedings, and a rule-based score with reasons. That is far more informative than the bare name 'get_risk', and the 'not a credit rating' caveat sharpens what the score means. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_financials or verify_company, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Costs credits' implies the tool is costly and should not be called speculatively, which is a usable usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus get_financials (financial statements) or verify_company (registry verification), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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