get_company_risk_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid endpoint and the 402 challenge behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the success response, side effects, or that it is a read-only operation. The 'thin wrapper' implies pass-through, but more transparency on normal behavior is needed.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds value. 'Thin wrapper' is efficient. Excellent conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema). The description covers the paid endpoint and error behavior but omits the success return type or structure. Without an output schema, the description should briefly state what the tool returns on success (e.g., risk summary data). This gap prevents a higher score.

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 is 100% because the 'id' parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Company identifier accepted by the hosted API.' This is adequate but not enriched. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a wrapper for GET /companies/:id/intelligence, which fetches a company risk summary. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_event_company_intel' and 'search_company_context' by specifying the endpoint and mentioning payment requirements. However, it could more explicitly state the functional purpose (e.g., 'retrieves risk summary').

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the paid nature and default non-settling mode but does not compare with siblings like 'search_company_context' or 'get_event_company_intel'. No explicit when-to or when-not-to use advice is provided.

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