crehq_company_credit_signals

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for 'credit-intel access' and the behavior when unavailable/scope-gated, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or potential side effects, though the tool name implies a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and a clear label, followed by a detailed but relevant list of data types. It is longer than minimal but every sentence contributes to usage or content expectations, with no fluff.

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 the rich set of data returned (credit signals, ratings, capital structure, events), the description provides a comprehensive overview of outputs and use cases. It lacks explicit mention of output format or limits, but the absence of an output schema is compensated by the detailed enumeration of content.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description referencing crehq_companies_search. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond identifying it as a company id, so baseline 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 states the tool gets CREHQ Credit Signals for a brand, enumerating specific data types (ownership, PE sponsor, rating history, capital structure, etc.). This specific verb+resource+content distinguishes it from siblings like crehq_company_get or crehq_company_franchise.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Use this when the user asks about tenant credit, creditworthiness, lender diligence, leverage, ratings, sponsor ownership, or distress/health signals.' It also provides an explicit alternative via crehq_request_upgrade if access is unavailable, making the guidance actionable.

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