Bankruptcy Exposure Screening (by Name)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: PII-sensitive nature, required access tier, name-based matching (no national ID), and the fact that results are review flags. This discloses operational and privacy implications not visible in structured metadata. No contradiction.

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 compact yet information-dense. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: core function, when to use, limitation/caveat, and access requirement. No fluff, properly front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: function, target use case, alternatives, result interpretation, PII/tier constraints, and parameter context. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing that matching is name-based with no national ID, clarifying the 'navn' parameter's limitations and the purpose parameter's audit-trail role. This extra context justifies a slight bump above baseline.

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 screens a person by name for bankruptcy exposure, specifically leadership roles in bankrupt companies, tenure-weighted. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning historical leaders not reachable via search_persons/get_person, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for HISTORICAL leaders no longer in any role index, and names the alternatives (search_persons, get_person). It also provides important interpretation guidance (hit is a review flag, not a verdict), which is essential for proper usage.

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