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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing methodology and output semantics: OCR bands are derived from debt and interest cover, FX exposure from revenue segments, and the composite score is on a 0-100 scale. It stops short of noting data freshness or the drivers of the score bands, which would push it higher.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load what the tool returns and then explain the payoff. No filler or repetition of the title, though the enumerated components make it slightly list-like rather than flowing prose.

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 there is no obligation to explain return values, and the description still names the key fields and their scales (high/moderate/low bands, 0-100 score). For a single-ticker read-only tool this is essentially complete; only sourcing or refresh caveats are absent.

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 description coverage is 100% with a ticker format hint and NZX examples ("RYM", "FPH", "AIR"). The description adds no further meaning about the ticker argument, so with full schema coverage this sits at the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus a clearly scoped resource (a company's macro sensitivity profile), and it enumerates the exact outputs: OCR sensitivity, FX exposure, cyclicality, and a 0-100 composite macro risk score. It implicitly separates itself from market-level siblings like get_macro_regime and get_macro_history by stressing 'this specific company', but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied ('this specific company', sensitivity to macro changes) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing to the closely related get_macro_regime / get_macro_history / get_offshore_exposure siblings. An agent must infer the company-level vs market-level distinction on its own.

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