litigation_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds concrete behavioral specifics: the exact sources searched (SEBI, NCLT, IndianKanoon, LiveLaw, Bar & Bench) and record categories (litigation, penalties, insolvency, disqualification). This goes beyond annotations by detailing the scope of data, which is valuable for an agent deciding if this tool fits.

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 with zero filler. The first sentence packs the core function and sources, and the second gives a precise contrast with negative_news. Information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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?

For a read-only research tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, sources, record types, and a key sibling distinction. It lacks details about return format or limitations, but openWorldHint already implies non-exhaustiveness. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it and what input to provide, though it could mention the required company field.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The only parameter, context, is a nested object with required 'company' and optional fields (date, listed, sector, country, companyDomain). The description never mentions how to specify the subject (e.g., company name in context.company) or what the optional fields do, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. Given low coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 screens specific legal/regulatory sources (SEBI, NCLT, IndianKanoon, etc.) for litigation, penalties, insolvency, and disqualification records tied to a company/promoter. It also explicitly differentiates from negative_news, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 a clear usage context by naming the sources and record types, and explicitly distinguishes this tool from negative_news for hard legal/regulatory records. However, it doesn't mention when to use it over other relevant siblings like red_flag_screen or promoter_background, leaving some ambiguity for alternative selection.

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