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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious provenance: the figures are Kabuken-calculated from EDINET filings rather than reported directly, warning the agent that values are derived and may not match the source filing verbatim.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, then the provenance caveat. Front-loaded with purpose, no filler or repetition of the title.

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 must characterize return values and does so at the field level (BOJ rate sensitivity, METI export control classification). Minor gaps remain around empty/unknown results and whether coverage varies by company, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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% and entity_code is documented with an example ('E02144'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing further about the identifier format or what happens with an unknown code, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get risk context indicators for a Japanese listed company') and then concretizes the payload as BOJ rate sensitivity and METI export control classification. That content profile clearly separates it from siblings like get_company or get_company_financials, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for rate/export-control exposure on a single company. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_company_financials or compare_companies for cross-company analysis.

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