score_company

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'eleven weighted buckets and rationale' but omits whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. The brevity leaves key behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single fragment ('The 0-100 investment rating with its eleven weighted buckets and rationale.') rather than a complete sentence. It is too sparse, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 no output schema and a simple parameter set, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., structure of the rating, rationale format). It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter ('ticker' or 'market'). It does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is just field names and types.

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 hints at the tool's output (a 0-100 investment rating with eleven buckets and rationale), but it lacks an explicit verb. It does not clearly state that the tool scores a company, and it does not differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_company' or 'risk_assessment'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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