cpsc_penalty_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the expected input source (company names from search results) and penalty types, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or return format. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, first sentence states the purpose, second gives workflow guidance. No redundant filler, front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter, schema coverage is complete, annotations cover safety, and the description addresses purpose and usage. It does not explain return format, but that is not critical for this type of tool. Overall, the information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter (penalty_type) with an enum and description. The description reinforces the civil/criminal values but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the weight.

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 lists companies with CPSC penalties (civil or criminal). The verb 'List' and resource 'companies that have CPSC penalties' are specific, and the civil/criminal scope distinguishes it from related tools like cpsc_penalty_search.

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 explicit usage guidance by instructing users to 'Use the company names from results with cpsc_penalty_search,' which clarifies the workflow and relationship to the sibling tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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