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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: signals are deterministic (no AI scoring), and each signal carries its rule, severity, supporting facts and detected_at — effectively documenting the response shape in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what it finds, what a signal is, and what a signal contains. The example list is dense but informative rather than filler, and no sentence restates the tool name.

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, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, signal semantics, and the fields returned, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain: what "active" means, how many signals are returned, and whether filtering by severity/signal_type changes the result shape.

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%, and both optional filters (severity, signal_type) are fully enumerated in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the severity values and gives a subset of signal-type examples, but adds no filtering syntax or semantics the schema does not already provide.

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+resource ("Find active warning signals for a company") and then defines the nature of the resource — deterministic rules over register facts and filed annual reports, not AI scores. The enumerated signal examples and the explicit mention of severity/rules/facts/detected_at make it clearly distinct from siblings like search_company_events or get_company_history.

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?

Usage is implied by "active warning signals for a company" but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative such as search_company_events or get_company_history for raw events versus derived signals. The agent can infer the context but must guess at boundaries.

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