crehq_request_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns an upgrade prompt and records the requested topic as a paywall/upgrade-intent signal for follow-up. It also warns against misleading the user about data availability, which is valuable behavioral guidance.

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 longer than average but well-structured: a clear 'Use this when' opener, a detailed list of covered data types, the return behavior, and a 'Do NOT' caution. The extensive list is necessary to convey scope. Slightly verbose but every part serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and side effects sufficiently. It could mention the exact return format or behavior for non-free keys, but the core execution context is clear. The tool is simple enough that this description is nearly complete.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating the enum categories (e.g., 'ownership/sponsor/capital-structure/rating-history data' clarifies 'credit_profile'), helping the agent choose the correct requested_data value. It also provides an example for the brand parameter.

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's purpose: handle requests for data not in the free sandbox by returning an upgrade prompt. It explicitly lists the covered data categories, distinguishing this from sibling tools that retrieve specific data types. The verb 'Use this when' and the described outcome make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear when-to-use guidance (when user asks for paywalled data) and a strong when-not directive (do not tell the user the data doesn't exist). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the context implies those exist for included data. This is strong but lacks explicit alternative naming for a 5.

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