check_insolvency_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that records are 'TTL-filtered per MBIE Agreement cl 4.5-4.6', adding behavioral context beyond a simple read query. It does not mention auth requirements or error handling, but for a read-only check, this is adequate.

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 3 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds value: purpose, source/details, TTL filtering, usage guidance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 it's a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, filtering, and usage. It lacks details on return structure or error cases, but is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'slug' parameter well-described. The description adds 'for any person in the NZXplorer database,' which aligns but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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 checks insolvency/bankruptcy history for any person in the NZXplorer database, specifying the data source (MBIE Insolvency Register) and types (bankruptcy, no-asset procedures, summary instalment orders). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on insolvency, a specific domain not covered by other tools.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'when asked about a person's insolvency history, bankruptcy status, financial fitness to serve as director, or due diligence screening.' However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or provide explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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