get_accounting_quality

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the scores and their thresholds (e.g., M-score >-1.78 suggests manipulation). However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks extra context.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then detailing scores, and ending with use cases. It is concise but informative, with every sentence adding value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so description should clarify return format. It lists scores but not how they are structured. Parameters for year and limit are explained in schema but not how they interact (e.g., if year is omitted, does it return all years?). The description is complete for explaining scores but lacks structural details.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema, aside from providing example tickers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 retrieves accounting quality scores for NZX companies and lists the specific scores (Beneish M-score, Piotroski F-score, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_credit_ratings or get_governance_scores by focusing on accounting quality.

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 explicit use cases: 'is [company] at risk of manipulation?', 'financial health', 'bankruptcy risk', etc. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the use cases are clear and helpful for an agent.

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