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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the hard BODACC override for active insolvency/liquidation, the scoring components with thresholds, the confidence level, and the paid x402 cost. These are non-obvious behaviors that help an agent set expectations correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scoring logic, then covers return contents, the decision-support caveat, and payment in four tight sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only scoring tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the score means, how it is computed, what is returned, the payment model, and the tool's limitations. The input schema and output schema cover the remaining invocation details.

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 fully documents siren, api_key, and x_payment. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — a default-risk score (0-100) for a French company at ~12 months — and details the scoring inputs (financial ratios, company age, BODACC override). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_french_company_health_summary or get_french_company_financials by naming its exact output and risk focus.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: credit risk and insolvency risk scoring for decision support. It also states a firm exclusion — 'NOT a solvency opinion or credit rating' — which tells the agent when not to rely on it. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or contrast them, so it stops short of a 5.

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