promoter_background

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is non-destructive. The description adds that it queries external regulatory sources (SEBI/MCA/registry), but does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral aspects. Given the annotation covers the key safety trait, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It avoids unnecessary details and is easy to parse, making it highly efficient for an agent to understand quickly.

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?

With only one parameter (context) and a nested object, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage. It does not include an output schema, but that is not required for a screening tool, and the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 description for the context object already explains that context.company should be the promoter/director's name or company name for leadership screening. The tool description reiterates this, ensuring the parameter's meaning is unambiguous. This adds clarity beyond the raw schema fields.

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 action (screens) and the specific resources (SEBI/MCA/registry sources) and the purpose (disqualification, debarment, or regulatory penalty records). It also clarifies that it can take a company name to screen leadership, which distinguishes it from general company search tools.

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 explicitly instructs the user to pass the individual's name (or company name for leadership screening) as context.company, which provides direct usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the instruction is clear and sufficient for the primary use case.

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