get_dd_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It omits critical traits: whether the operation is read-only, required permissions, handling of invalid IČOs, or potential side effects. 'Generate' suggests a non-idempotent action, but the actual behavior is unclear.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second lists the report contents. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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, the description adequately outlines the return categories. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only hint, expected latency, error patterns). The presence of sibling tools could have been leveraged for completeness cues.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds meaning by explaining the 'depth' enum values ('basic = ARES + sanctions only; full = + ISIR insolvency + virtual-address probe'), which is more detailed than the schema alone.

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 generates a 'complete due-diligence report for a Czech IČO' and enumerates the returned data categories (company facts, statutory body, risk score). This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'get_risk_score' and 'get_statutory_chain,' which are more narrow in scope.

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 implies the tool is for comprehensive reports but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to use a simpler alternative like 'get_risk_score'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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