site-due-diligence-bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'reads live from the official government source,' indicating a read-only, network-dependent behavior. However, it does not mention potential latency, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. This is some transparency but not rich.

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 core purpose and includes a useful list of the 20 layers. It is longer than necessary, and the Store page URL is not relevant to tool invocation, but the structure is clear and each piece of information contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 complexity of a 20-layer bundle, the description covers the main purpose, output, and data source. It lacks a detailed output schema description, but since no output schema is provided, the mention of verdict and score is sufficient for selection and initial invocation. The gap is minor.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, examples, ranges, and defaults for all three parameters. The description itself does not add parameter semantics, but the schema already handles the full burden. Baseline 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 performs environmental due diligence by returning a go/caution/no-go verdict and a 0-100 score across 20 federal layers. It uses a specific verb 'returns' and lists the layers, which distinguishes it from sibling single-purpose screeners.

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 context for when to use this tool: for comprehensive environmental due diligence in a single call. It implies it can replace multiple individual screeners, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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