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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it warns that the call costs credits and clarifies that the score is rule-based rather than a credit rating. It does not disclose credit cost amount or failure behavior, but the added cost and caveat context are valuable.

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 dense sentence followed by a cost note, with no wasted words. The most important content is front-loaded, and the parenthetical caveat is appropriately brief.

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 two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned risk dimensions and adds the important credit-cost warning. It could be more complete by stating how many credits are consumed or any country-specific coverage limits, but it covers the essentials for selecting and invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, with regNo and country already documented in the input schema, including country enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints 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 names the specific resources returned: state debts, tax reliability, insolvency proceedings, and a rule-based score with reasons. It also clarifies that this is not a credit rating, which helps distinguish its output from a generic financial or company lookup. The main gap is that it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_financials or verify_company.

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 states that the tool costs credits but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_financials, verify_company, or screen_name. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer selection from the returned-data list.

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