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 discloses a conditional behavior (adding a public record reference section under certain conditions) and implies read-only via 'analyze', but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, requires permissions, or has rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear explanation of purpose, a conditional behavior note, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on when to use the tool and omits a parameter (lookback_days), making it incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 explains company_name (name or 6-digit code with example) and lookback_years (default 1, range 1-5), but omits the lookback_days parameter entirely. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it partially does for two of three parameters.

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 unfair trading risk signals based on recent disclosures, using company name or stock code. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool does without contextualizing its use.

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