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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds substantial methodological context beyond that: the 10 weighted dimensions, 51/49 core/supplementary split, 0-100 score, rating bands, trajectory, 131-issuer coverage, and framework grounding. It still omits operational details like update cadence or data latency, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the purpose and then packs the scoring model, rating bands, and trajectory into one dense paragraph. Most clauses are informative, though boilerplate such as 'v2.0 engine' and the framework name list could be trimmed without harming invocation.

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 does not need to explain return values, and it already covers what the score means, how it is composed, the range, ratings, and trajectory. Given the tool's complexity and the complete parameter schema, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the only parameter, ticker, is documented in the schema with an NZX symbol example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and for a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage 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 IR Quality Score (IRQS) for an NZX company', and details its scope as a 0-100 composite across 10 weighted dimensions. It does not explicitly name or distinguish among the many IR siblings such as get_ir_dashboard or get_ir_scorecard_compare, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

Offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternative tool. An agent must infer that it is appropriate whenever an IR quality score for a single NZX company is needed, but nothing routes it away from related IR tools.

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