analyze_company_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The description simply states the action without revealing operational behavior.

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 relatively short (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section provides clear parameter details. It is efficient, though the inclusion of 'Args:' could be considered slightly verbose for a JSON description.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the main inputs and purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema is not referenced, but that is acceptable as per rules.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema for two of three parameters: it gives an example for company_name and a range for lookback_years. However, the lookback_days parameter is entirely ignored in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 analyzes investment risk based on recent disclosures using company name or stock code. It gives a specific verb-resource pair ('analyze company risk') and method ('based on recent disclosures'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like check_disclosure_risk or find_risk_precedents.

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 mentions when to use the tool (for risk analysis) and the input formats, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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