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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, and the description adds real substance: the 40/30/30 component weighting, that disclosure transparency covers hedging/sentiment/buried risks, that results are sector-benchmarked with a percentile, and the five-tier rating scale. This output-characterizing context goes well beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose, then a compact breakdown of components and rating tiers, then usage triggers. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter schema, and safety annotations already present, the description supplies the interpretive layer (composite weights, rating bands, sector percentile) an agent needs to explain or reason about results. Complete enough for a single-parameter read tool.

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 parameter, so the schema fully documents the ticker. The description only implies the NZX-company scope without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ESG disclosure quality benchmark for an NZX company') and details the resource's three-component composite structure. Very clear on what it does, but does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. get_esg_disclosure_gap, get_disclosure_score, get_greenwashing_detection), so an agent must infer differentiation.

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?

'Use when asked about ESG reporting quality, greenwashing risk, disclosure benchmarking, or how a company's ESG reporting compares to peers' gives strong trigger conditions. However, it offers no when-not guidance or named alternatives, and overlaps thematically with siblings like get_greenwashing_detection and get_esg_disclosure_gap without routing between them.

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