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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real substance: the 10 weighted dimensions, their 51/49 split, the 0-100 composite basis, the Excellent-to-Very-Poor rating bands, a trajectory field, and the v2.0 engine provenance. What it does not disclose is freshness/caching of the underlying filings or how missing data is treated in the score.

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 tool's purpose and score name, then organized into core/supplementary dimensions, rating bands, and version. It is dense and drops several framework acronyms (OECD, CFA, S&P, NIRI, AIRA) that add little operational value, but the structure keeps the essential meaning readable in one block.

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 needn't explain return values, and it still goes further by defining the score's scale, bands, and trajectory so the agent can interpret and relay results. The only material omission is routing guidance against the many sibling IR/disclosure tools.

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% for the single ticker parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the weak constraint that the company must be NZX-listed ('for an NZX company'), with no further format or scope detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get IR Quality Score (IRQS) for an NZX company') and defines exactly what the score is composed of, so the tool's remit is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_ir_scorecard_compare, get_ir_dashboard, or get_disclosure_score, leaving the agent to infer which IR-quality artifact to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance despite a crowded IR/disclosure sibling group (get_ir_dashboard, get_ir_briefing, get_disclosure_score, get_ir_scorecard_compare). The agent must guess whether this is the per-company score, the comparison view, or the dashboard view.

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