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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these by stating the output is 'deterministic' and by naming the kinds of results produced ('signals, risk flags and positive signals'). This gives the agent a good sense of call-to-call behavior and output scope without contradicting 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 two sentences with no filler. The action and primary scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by adding the usage context. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

With a rich output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return formats or side effects. It correctly focuses on the two required parameters and the decision context. The only gap is lack of explicit differentiation from the due_diligence_oman_company sibling, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 what the schema does not explain. It does reference companyId and purpose ('by companyId, for a stated evaluation purpose') and gives examples of purpose values (supplier, customer, partner, investment target) that mirror the enum. However, it does not explain how each purpose value changes the analysis or what companyId format is expected, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and a precise resource: 'deterministic commercial-intelligence signals, risk flags and positive signals for one Oman company by companyId'. It clearly scopes the operation to a single company and a stated purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling due_diligence_oman_company, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear use-when condition: 'when an agent needs to assess whether an Oman company looks like a serious, established operating business — as a supplier, customer, partner or investment target.' This gives the agent strong situational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, which prevents a 5.

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