ares_full_due_diligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (structured report, risk flag, Markdown summary) and the specific data sources consulted. It does not discuss error handling, speed, or risk flag logic, but for a read-only aggregate tool, this is reasonable.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the output and integration benefit. No redundant information; every 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (structured report, risk flag, Markdown summary). It also lists the data sources aggregated. Some specifics like the report structure or risk determination criteria are missing, but for an agent to invoke the tool, this is 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (ico) with a clear description 'Czech IČO of the company,' so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetches' and 'returns' to describe a composite due-diligence report, listing the data sources (ARES profile, Public Register, Trade Register, insolvency status, dissolution date). It clearly differentiates from sibling individual lookup tools by explicitly stating it replaces 4–5 individual lookups with a single call.

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?

It states 'Replaces 4–5 individual lookups with a single call,' indicating use for comprehensive due diligence instead of making multiple individual requests. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use (e.g., if only one data point is needed), but the context is clear enough.

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