houjin_kyb_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable context: the $0.25 cost, the composite nature, and the dataset vintage. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it doesn't detail error handling or response format.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core purpose and list contents. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or repetition of structured fields.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of enumerating the returned data (registry, status, readings, risk flags, summary, vintage), along with inputs and cost. It lacks mention of possible failure modes, but overall it is quite complete for decision-making.

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 each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description only repeats that a number or name is accepted, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: a one-call KYB report on a Japanese corporation with a specific list of included data (registry, lifecycle, readings, risk flags, summary, vintage). It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as a composite that replaces 3-4 separate lookups.

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?

It explicitly says it accepts a corporate number or company name, and notes it's a premium composite replacing multiple lookups, implying it should be used when a comprehensive report is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative sibling tools.

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