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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses what the score is built from, the 0-100% scale, the five named risk bands, and that it is grounded in historical NZ failure patterns (CBL, Wynyard, Pumpkin Patch) — meaning an agent knows this is a pattern-based heuristic, not a live credit feed.

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 purpose, then the model, then the output bands, then the usage trigger — a logical order with no filler. The eight-factor enumeration is dense but each item is load-bearing for understanding what the score captures.

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-structure detail is unnecessary, and the description nonetheless names the output scale and risk bands. Combined with the single well-documented parameter and the annotation-covered safety profile, nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool is missing.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the NZX ticker argument. The description adds nothing about ticker format or validity beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 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 financial distress early warning for a company') and then enumerates the exact composition of the model (Z-Score, F-Score, M-Score, interest coverage, current ratio, revenue trend, cash flow, governance) plus the output scale. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_liquidity_score or get_governance_scorecard immediately.

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 financial health, distress risk, bankruptcy probability, or going concern risk' gives explicit trigger conditions. It does not, however, name or exclude adjacent siblings (e.g. check_insolvency_status, get_company_failures, get_earnings_quality), so the agent must infer boundaries.

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