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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions the purpose requirement and cost advantage, but does not mention the interpret fee, potential side effects, or output format. This is a moderate disclosure for a report retrieval tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by cost and requirement context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the detailed parameter schema and the listed report components, the description is fairly complete for selecting this tool. It covers what the report contains and the purpose requirement, though it omits output structure details that are not covered elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, confirming the baseline score of 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?

The description explicitly states the tool returns a full due-diligence report including profile, participants, beneficial owners, real property, seizure acts, and court cases. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch individual components, so the purpose is clear and specific.

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 when to use this tool by highlighting that it is cheaper than buying parts separately and that a purpose is required for beneficial-owner data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the value proposition guides selection for comprehensive due-diligence needs.

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