build_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral trait — that uncovered coverage windows cause results to be labeled 'unverified' — but it omits that this is a multi-stage, likely long-running operation against external sources, and never mentions that save_files defaults to true and writes files to disk as a side effect.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by only the parameter notes that are actually needed. It is compact with no filler, though the abrupt line breaks and the lack of any structural marker between purpose and parameters slightly hurt scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a complex multi-stage tool with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, leaving save_files and name undocumented and saying nothing about duration or side effects leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well on three of five parameters, explaining that announcement_pages × page_size defines scan breadth and that window_days is the coverage window behind the 'unverified' marking. However, `name` and especially `save_files` (a side-effect-bearing boolean) get no explanation at all.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: produce a complete background-check report on one company, and it enumerates the internal pipeline (probe → disambiguate → collect → red-line judgment → conclusion). This lets an agent see it is the end-to-end orchestrator while siblings like probe_sources, resolve_company and risk_sweep are individual stages, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the pipeline sequence suggests this is the 'do everything' tool versus the single-step siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement, and no mention of cost, runtime, or prerequisites that would make an agent choose otherwise.

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