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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the escalation rule that active bankruptcy or a confirmed sanctions match forces an auto-Critical rating, and the corporate-tier gating. It stops short of stating latency, coverage limits, or what happens when a source database is unavailable.

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 purpose, then the database enumeration, then outputs. The 12-database list is dense but earns its place as a transparency signal. The return-value sentence partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild waste.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description need only supply scope and decision rules, which it does well (sources, scoring scale, auto-Critical triggers, tier restriction). Missing is a pointer to when this is the right screen versus the individual source 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?

The single parameter 'slug' has 100% schema description coverage including an example, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond what the schema already shows, which is the baseline case for a well-documented one-param tool.

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: 'Run automated KYC/AML screening on an NZX director', then enumerates the 12 databases consulted, which makes the scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_director_risk or get_director_due_diligence, so an agent must infer the split, keeping it below 5.

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 only usage constraint given is 'Corporate tier only' at the very end. There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_director_due_diligence, get_director_risk, or the individual source tools (get_prohibited_directors, get_regulatory_actions), which is a meaningful gap given the crowded sibling set.

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