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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns evidence signals rather than a safe/unsafe verdict, and that signals are 'evidence-tiered'. This clarifies the output's nature beyond the annotations.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the signal scope, and ends with the caveat. No wasted words, though the length is justified by the content.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no required fields, the description should explain parameter usage and optionality. It provides a high-level purpose and usage context but omits operational details like how to specify checks, whether country/website are optional, or how they relate to the company parameter. The presence of an output schema helps but does not cover input semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It lists signal types (corporate_identity, domain, etc.) that map to the 'checks' enum, but never explicitly says that the 'checks' parameter selects these. It also does not explain the 'company', 'country', or 'website' parameters. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb ('gather') and a clear resource ('evidence-tiered risk signals for a company'), enumerates the signal categories, and explicitly disclaims a verdict output. This distinguishes it from potential siblings like research_company or due_diligence_oman_company.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('when an agent needs risk evidence to weigh before a transaction, partnership, or onboarding decision') and an explicit exclusion ('not a substitute for compliance/legal sign-off'). It clearly frames the tool's role without naming alternatives, which is sufficient.

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