Intel Dossier ($0.10)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost ($0.10 USDC) and the scope of returned information (multiple due diligence fields). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences: the first lists content, the second gives use case and cost. It is maximally concise with no redundant words, front-loading the key purpose and differentiation.

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 is complex with no output schema. The description lists high-level categories of returned data but lacks specifics on structure, formatting, or edge cases. For a paid due-diligence tool, more detail on output format would improve completeness.

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 coverage for the single 'target' parameter is 100%. The description adds value by stating it works for 'any company or website' and listing example outputs, but does not provide additional constraints or format details beyond the schema's description.

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 explicitly states the tool produces a 'full due-diligence dossier' on any company or website, listing specific data points (legitimacy, domain age, contacts, social presence, scam red flags). This clearly defines its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like merchant_trust or extract_contacts, which cover only subsets.

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 indicates this tool is for 'counterparty research & background checks' and positions it as consolidating multiple checks into one call ('one call instead of ten'). While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, the context strongly implies its primary use case, providing adequate guidance.

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