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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that every source degrades gracefully and a failing leg is noted but not fatal. It also clarifies that the output is a narrative synthesis with a headline and four named sections, which is useful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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 audience, then uses compact clauses to list sources, output structure, degradation behavior, and sibling distinctions. Every clause earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's multi-source complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still explains what the agent will receive: a readable brief with a headline and four named sections, plus graceful handling of source failures. The single required parameter is semantically complete, and the relationship to the closest sibling tools is explicit. Nothing critical for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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?

All three parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful matching semantics: RECAP dockets are matched by name reference and USAspending awards are name-matched, while the ticker/state hints act as disambiguation aids. This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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 specific deliverable — a 'one-call NARRATIVE public-record diligence dossier' — and scopes it to public companies / SEC issuers. It enumerates the joined sources and output sections, and explicitly distinguishes itself from counterparty_risk_score and entity_dossier, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 intended use case is clear: public-record diligence for an SEC issuer. It explicitly contrasts the tool with counterparty_risk_score (a 0-100 score) and entity_dossier (SEC+EPA+sanctions only), which routes agents to the right alternative. It also adds an exclusion: it is not a background check or legal/financial advice.

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