getESGDisclosures

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

The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It fails to disclose what the tool returns or any side effects, relying solely on the annotations.

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 two sentences but is wordy and not front-loaded with the core action. It prioritizes marketing language over succinct functionality, though it is not excessively long.

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, the description should explain what the tool returns. While it mentions ESG scores and controversies, it does not clearly state the output format or how the data is structured, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema already describes the 'symbol' parameter as 'Stock symbol' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so 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 is vague and uses marketing language ('Align your investments with your values') instead of clearly stating that the tool returns ESG disclosures for a given stock symbol. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like getESGRatings or getESGBenchmarks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools serve different purposes.

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