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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by defining GRS as a 0-100 scale composed of six specific components and by indicating filtering capabilities. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then immediately provides the most useful selection details: scale, components, and filter categories. Every sentence adds value.

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, no required parameters, and all seven parameters documented in the schema, the description is sufficient for a correct call. It covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level and the filtering dimensions. Nothing necessary for selection or invocation appears 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description adds marginal value by explaining that sector, rating, and score range are filter options and by framing the 0-100 scale relevant to min_score/max_score. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond the schema in meaningful new detail.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get Governance Risk Scores (GRS) for NZX companies.' It also explains the score scale and its six components, which makes the tool's scope immediately clear. The resource is unique among the sibling tools (e.g., distinct from get_credit_ratings or get_esg_data), so an agent can select it 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 description implies usage context by naming the domain (governance risk for NZX firms) and listing available filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or related sibling tools, so the guidance is adequate but not direct.

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