get_credit_ratings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the approximate scale (~80 ratings across ~20 issuers) and that it covers mainly banks, utilities, and large caps. However, it does not disclose the response format, pagination, error handling for unknown tickers, or any rate limits. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage line. Every sentence adds value—scope, agencies, actions, and example queries. No redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded and 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail about the response structure, pagination limits (though limit parameter is described), and behavior for missing tickers. It mentions coverage scope but omits the format of ratings history. It is partially complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds context about the types of agencies and actions but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description meets that without adding substantial new meaning.

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 credit rating history for NZX companies, listing specific agencies (S&P, Moody's, Fitch, AM Best, Equifax) and types of actions (upgrades, downgrades, outlook changes). It also provides the scope (~80 ratings across ~20 NZX issuers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover different financial data.

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 includes explicit example queries like 'credit rating for [company]', 'has [company] been downgraded?', and 'investment grade NZX companies' which guide the agent on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for non-NZX or non-covered agencies, though the context of sibling tools implies NZX-focus.

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