esg_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get ESG scores' without specifying whether these are current scores, historical series, or what ESG pillars are included. It doesn't mention the return structure, potential errors, or rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the name, which is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's 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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficiently minimal with no fluff. However, it might be slightly under-specified for an agent to fully understand the scope, though that's more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. The brevity is appropriate for a simple getter tool.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the ESG scores look like, possible value ranges, or whether multiple ESG dimensions are returned. It does not. For a tool that returns data, the lack of any return format or scope explanation makes it incomplete for an agent to know what to expect or how to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'ticker' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming the ticker is a stock symbol (as the schema already shows). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add value but doesn't mislead either.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('ESG scores') for a specific ticker, which is unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, there are no other ESG-specific tools among the many siblings, so confusion is unlikely. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function.

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, no exclusions, and no context on what type of data is appropriate (e.g., equity vs. ETF). It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and the single parameter. This is a clear gap in usability.

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