get_activity_ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it gets a ranking, but does not disclose how ranking is computed, what data is returned (e.g., scores, company names), or any edge-case behavior. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences fully convey the core action and the optional filter. No redundant words; the structure front-loads the main purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the ranking looks like (e.g., sorted list with scores, whether it includes the company itself). It does not, leaving a significant gap for an agent to know what to expect from the response.

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% and includes detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description's mention of an optional ESG category adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the category enum and the default average ranking. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('ranking of all companies within the same activity'), and the optional filter ('by ESG category'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_companies_by_activity, which list companies without ranking.

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 when to use the tool: when you need a ranked list of companies sharing an activity with a specified company. It provides clear context (companyId identifies the activity) and an optional category filter, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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