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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that blocks degrade independently and that missing data returns an error field instead of failing the call—a valuable behavioral trait. It doesn't mention authentication or side effects, but for a read-only snapshot this is less critical, and the degradation behavior adds significant transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then lists contents, behavioral nuance, and related tools. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 a single-parameter snapshot tool with no output schema, the description communicates the return content, use case, degradation behavior, and related tools. It could slightly elaborate on the output envelope (e.g., response structure), but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 only parameter is 'ticker', whose schema description merely says 'Path parameter (required)'. The tool description doesn't elaborate on the ticker format or examples, but the phrase 'for a company' makes its meaning obvious. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%, even though the schema description is thin.

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 explicitly states it provides a 'credit snapshot' and enumerates precisely what data it returns (CDS spread, default probability, S&P rating, bond yield/volume, loan count). It is clearly positioned as the first call for credit risk questions, and the 'Drill down' sentence distinguishes it from the more specific credit_bonds/cds/ratings/loans 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 description gives an explicit usage trigger ('call FIRST for any how risky is this company's debt? question') and names the alternative drill-down tools. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the 'call FIRST' framing strongly implies it is the entry point and that more granular tools are for follow-up.

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