Credit Ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds semantic context (forward-looking signal on credit/solvency risk, 'over time') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or return format. Given annotations handle safety, the description provides modest extra value, warranting a 3.

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 two sentences, highly compact, and front-loads the action and key fields. The second sentence provides the purpose and use case without fluff. Every word 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?

The description lists the output fields (agency, rating, action, outlook) and the temporal aspect ('over time'), giving an agent an idea of what to expect. There is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by indicating the response content. It does not mention pagination or response structure, but for a read-only, alias-parameter tool, the provided information is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: all three parameters (symbol, ticker, identifier) are documented as aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per calibration, a high-coverage schema yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 states a specific action ('Get credit-rating actions') with a clear resource (company) and lists the key fields (agency, rating, action, outlook). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like get_corporate_actions or get_stock_events, though the resource is distinct enough for an agent to infer the difference.

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 provides explicit use-case context: 'Use for risk assessment and debt-investor research.' This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated purpose is clear and sufficient for routing.

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