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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns one row per subject, includes counts, dates, and details, mentions data sources (WARN, Form 5500, etc.), and clarifies it is not a consumer report (no FCRA use). However, it does not discuss pagination behavior beyond listing the cursor parameter.

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 paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. It is information-dense but not overly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: rows with per-marker counts, dates, and details. It also covers identifier mapping (ticker/CIK) and basis disclosure. The pricing note is a contextual bonus. No gaps remain for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% (every parameter has a description). The description adds context about marker types and output, but does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. For example, the 'marker' parameter's allowed values are already listed in the schema description, and the description merely restates them.

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's purpose: 'Which businesses carry public-record distress markers?' It lists the ten specific marker types and explains the output structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like firmstanding_business360 or firmstanding_company_search by focusing solely on distress markers.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. It implicitly indicates its niche (distress markers) but lacks contrast with sibling tools or guidance on when to choose it over other firmstanding tools.

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