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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral colour — it enumerates per-requirement status, evidence, recommendations, an overall 0-100 score, and mandatory-reporter status — which tells the agent the shape and depth of the assessment.

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-loaded with the framework and scope, then the breakdown, then the use cases — no filler sentences. The enumeration of requirement counts and return fields is dense but each clause carries information; only mild overlap with the output schema.

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?

Covers scope, framework, requirement breakdown, and trigger conditions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out further. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (must the ticker be an NZX-listed reporter?) and failure behaviour for non-covered companies.

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?

Only one parameter (ticker) and its schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully with examples. The description adds no ticker-level semantics (e.g. listed-company requirement, invalid-ticker behaviour), so 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+resource (gap analysis against NZ CS 1-4) plus exact scope: 23 XRB requirements broken into governance/strategy/risk/metrics counts, for an NZX company. This is clearly distinguishable from near neighbours like get_esg_disclosure_gap and get_property_climate_risk 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?

The final sentence gives explicit trigger conditions: climate compliance, NZ CS readiness, XRB requirements, TCFD gaps. That is strong positive routing, but it names no exclusions or the sibling tool to choose instead (e.g. ESG disclosure gap) for overlapping queries.

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