get_dd_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it generates a report with risk scores and sanctions, but no additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or rate limits. Adequate but not enriched.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the main purpose, then lists content details. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately describes return contents (company facts, statutory body, risk score, red flags). Could mention that it accepts a single IČO per call, but overall complete for a single-input report tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each depth level ('basic' vs 'full') includes (e.g., 'basic = ARES + sanctions only'), which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Generate a complete due-diligence report for a Czech IČO' and lists specific outputs (company facts, statutory body, risk score). It differentiates from sibling tools that are more specialized detection tools (e.g., detect_nominee_director, get_risk_score) by being a holistic report.

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 this is for a comprehensive report on a Czech company, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. specialized siblings. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternatives, so it's slightly above average.

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