get_risk_narrative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no external credit fetch (data sourcing), cheapest/fastest (cost and latency), and plain-English output (response style). It stops short of stating failure modes, auth needs, or the exact return shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the artifact and its defining constraint, then the usage condition. No filler beyond a small amount of cost framing that itself carries selection value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, data sourcing, cost, and output style. Only the parameter format and any failure/empty-result behavior are left unspecified.

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% and the single parameter is required, so the description must compensate. 'For a UK company' hints that company_number is a UK registration identifier but gives no format, length, or validation guidance, so it only partially fills the gap.

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?

States a specific artifact (plain-English risk summary) and its scope (a UK company), and implicitly contrasts it with the 'full profile' tool, so an agent can tell it apart from get_company without opening either schema. It also defines what 'narrative' means, which the name alone does not.

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 condition: 'Use when the user just wants is this company safe to deal with rather than the full profile.' It names the alternative (full profile) and the intent that selects this tool instead, plus the cost/effort tradeoff ('cheapest call').

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