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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing the substantive thresholds and classification scheme an agent needs to interpret results: tenure >10 years, non-audit fee ratio >1.0, and a critical/high/elevated/moderate/low composite scale.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its full output inventory, the second is a pure routing cue. The dense enumeration is all load-bearing and nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present the description need not detail return formatting, and annotations cover safety. Combined with the enumerated signal set and trigger conditions, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage (NZX ticker with examples), so the schema carries full parameter load. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 auditor red flags/risk signals for an NZX company) and then enumerates exactly what is returned: audit opinions, going concern warnings, tenure concerns, fee ratio issues, KAM counts, auditor changes, and a composite risk level. This level of specificity clearly separates it from broad siblings like get_audit_history or get_earnings_quality.

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 final sentence gives explicit trigger phrases ('audit red flags, auditor risk, auditor independence, going concern, or audit quality'), which is strong contextual guidance. It does not, however, name a competing sibling (e.g. get_audit_history) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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