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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description rightly spends its words on non-obvious traits: 0.03 USDC per call, p95 latency of 8000 ms, and that bundling is cheaper than the separate calls. It does not explain error/partial-failure behavior or why idempotentHint is false, which would have pushed this to a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition and exclusions, followed by payload contents, pricing and latency. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to decide or budget; the trailing 'Category: Data' tag is the only filler.

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 an aggregator tool with an output schema present, the description supplies everything the schema cannot: when it beats the constituent tools, what it excludes, cost, and latency. Return shape is already handled by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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 domain, name, ticker and the concise/detailed response_format enum in detail. The description only restates the ticker gating ('with a ticker, SEC financials') and never mentions response_format, so it adds little beyond structured data; 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 names a concrete verb+resource (company research dossier built from a domain and optional ticker) and enumerates the bundled payloads (domain registration/DNS, email and website security, news, SEC financials). This enumeration implicitly differentiates it from the sibling single-purpose tools (blackwood_domain_intel, blackwood_headers_audit, blackwood_news_search, blackwood_sec_facts) by making clear it is an aggregator.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('company research, due diligence or a quick analysis of a business from its website domain') and explicit when-not-to-use ('private financials, credit scores, people search or businesses without a website'). The condition selecting the ticker-driven financial branch is also stated. Nothing is left to inference.

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