Get Company Risk Signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the categories of signals returned, providing modest behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not discuss data freshness, rate limits, or other operational details.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with key information: the purpose, content list, and usage context. No extraneous words.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with two parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, contents, and usage workflow. Missing explicit mention of idempotency or return format, but annotations cover safety traits and the signal list provides sufficient context.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (orgnr and since) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly associates orgnr with 'one company'.

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 it provides aggregated risk signals for one company and enumerates specific signal types (bankruptcy/distress score, capital-loss flags, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the second step after get_company.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use as the second step after get_company to evaluate whether a company needs deeper due diligence.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives among the many sibling risk tools.

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