get_ir_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only query ('Get...') and describes the output components (composite score, rating, trajectory). However, it lacks details such as error handling for invalid tickers, data freshness, or any potential side effects, which are important for safe agent execution.

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-organized: it begins with the core purpose, then lists dimensions, then summarizes the output, and ends with example queries. Every sentence is informative and contributes to understanding. It is concise enough for quick scanning while providing substantial detail.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the score measures, how it is composed, and example outputs. However, it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ticker is not found) and does not specify the exact response structure, which would help an agent parse results reliably.

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 has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (ticker). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain ticker format beyond examples). Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the description adds minimal value here.

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 immediately states the tool's action: 'Get the IR disclosure quality score for an NZX company.' It specifies the resource (IR disclosure quality score), the target (NZX company), and even enumerates the five dimensions and output format. This level of detail leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 example user intents ('Use for...'), which helps an agent recognize when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with siblings like get_governance_scorecard or get_accounting_quality, leaving some room for ambiguity in complex scenarios.

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