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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions real-time detection, enrichment with GLEIF and sanctions screening, pillar classification, severity grading, source linkage, and a specific data-quality constraint (company must be named in the web address). It also discloses payment via x402 (USDC on Base). This is substantial, though it does not specify return format, pagination, or rate limits.

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 moderately sized but packed with relevant information. It front-loads the purpose and then details features, constraints, and payment. While not as terse as the high example, it remains efficient and free of fluff, with each sentence contributing to usability.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good deal of context: it explains what is returned (pillar-classified, severity-graded, source-linked controversies with enrichment) and the key constraint. It does not detail exact fields or handling of limits, but given the complexity and optional parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds some value by providing a concrete example for the region parameter and explaining the company-name condition, but these are minor augmentations. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool detects ESG controversies from worldwide news in real time, enriches with GLEIF entity resolution and EU sanctions screening, and classifies by pillar, severity, and source. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool hsh-esg-events (SEC-filing product), making its purpose and uniqueness immediately clear.

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 provides context on when to use this tool (news-derived breadth) versus the authoritative SEC-filing product hsh-esg-events. It also gives a specific usage instruction for the region parameter ('Pass region='EU' for companies domiciled in the 27 EU member states'). However, it does not explicitly state conditions for when NOT to use it, but the complementary nature is implied.

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