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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: real-time detection, enrichment with GLEIF entity resolution and EU sanctions screening, pillar classification, severity grading, source linking, and payment via x402 (USDC on Base). It implies read-only behavior without destructive actions. Could mention potential data latency or rate limits but is sufficient.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose and key features. Two sentences plus a few fragments cover purpose, region filter, sibling complement, and payment method with no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions 'Pillar-classified, severity-graded, source-linked' to hint at return format, but lacks explicit structure, pagination details, or error handling. For a tool with enrichment, more detail on output fields would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like the region filter and optional company filter, but does not significantly expand on the schema's existing descriptions. For instance, 'limit' is already described as 'Max controversies to return.' The description reiterates 'pass region='EU'' which aligns with 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 clearly states 'EU & global ESG controversy intel for compliance and trading agents' and specifies detecting ESG controversies from news, enriching with LEI and sanctions screening, and pillar classification. It distinguishes from sibling hsh-esg-events by mentioning 'News-derived breadth (complements the authoritative SEC-filing ESG product hsh-esg-events)'.

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?

Provides specific guidance on when to use (e.g., real-time news vs SEC filings) and a direct instruction: 'Pass region='EU' to filter to EU-domiciled companies.' It also names the sibling alternative hsh-esg-events. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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