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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral details: the filtering nuance so clean 'No Violation Identified' statuses are never flagged, the fact that a failed leg is noted but not fatal, the returned risk levels (LOW/MODERATE/ELEVATED), and the informational limitations with a redistribution caveat. This is excellent transparency for a composite tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, data sources, filtering nuance, output format, failure handling, and usage caveats are all covered without repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary detail for a multi-source tool.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent can expect: a scorecard across Environmental, Product-safety, and Litigation dimensions with a rolled-up risk read and supporting evidence. It also covers edge behavior (failed leg handling) and legal/informational boundaries, making it complete for invocation and result interpretation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds mild context by explaining the state parameter disambiguates the EPA facility search and the company parameter names the entity to score, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns a one-call, source-linked ESG/supplier-risk scorecard for a company. It explicitly names the three data legs (EPA ECHO/FRS compliance, product recalls, federal-court litigation) and distinguishes itself from single-source sibling tools like epa_facility_compliance or cpsc_recall_search by being a composite synthesis.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you want a rolled-up ESG/supplier-risk signal across environmental, product-safety, and litigation evidence in one call. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or names alternatives such as epa_enforcement_search or court_case_search for deeper single-source investigation, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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