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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a derived composite score with a defined factor set and ordinal rating bands, which tells the agent what kind of value to expect. It doesn't discuss data freshness or coverage caveats, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and score definition, then the factor list, then the rating scale, then usage triggers. Every sentence carries information, though the eight-factor enumeration is dense and could be trimmed without much loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what the score means, its components, its range and rating bands, and when to call it — enough for an agent to invoke correctly given the single well-documented parameter.

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 there is a single ticker parameter whose format is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the implicit NZX scope, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get activist vulnerability score for an NZX company') and immediately defines the composite: 8 factors, 0-100 scale, rating bands. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_governance_scorecard or get_takeover_probability without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given ('activist risk, governance vulnerability, board accountability, whether a company could be an activist target'), which is clear positive routing. However, it names no alternative tool or exclusion condition (e.g. when to prefer get_governance_scorecard instead), so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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