adverse_media

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive), the description discloses the source set, the 10-year lookback window, the cost per call and the free-trial quota — commercial and scope behavior the agent could not infer from structured fields. It also names the coverage boundary (no sanctions/PEP), preventing false assumptions of completeness.

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 purpose and the exclusion, then sources, then cost, then args — a logical order with no filler sentences. The Args block is slightly redundant for a two-parameter tool, but it is genuinely compensating for an undocumented schema.

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?

Annotations cover safety, an output schema covers return values, and the description adds scope, sources, lookback and pricing, so an agent has what it needs to call correctly. The only residual gap is how to interpret or act on borderline findings, which the output schema partly handles.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain both: company_name as the entity to screen and website as an accuracy aid. The guidance is functional but thin — it doesn't say what input format the website expects (full URL vs domain) or what happens when company_name is ambiguous.

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 ('Screen a company for negative news, complaints and bad reviews') and enumerates the concrete sources checked, so an agent knows exactly what evidence the tool gathers. It also explicitly separates itself from kyb_findings, making it distinguishable from its closest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion plus a redirect: 'No sanctions/PEP screening: use kyb_findings for that,' which is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance an agent needs. The pricing note ('EUR 0.40 per call after the 3 free trial API calls') further informs the decision to invoke it.

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