companies_request_kyb

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is to explain consequences beyond that — yet it adds nothing about what the request triggers, whether it can be repeated, cost implications, or what is returned. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, simply restating the HTTP path provides no behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second line restates the tool name as a raw HTTP path, which contributes no information an agent can act on. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition should at minimum say what the operation initiates and what to expect on success or failure. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to judge consequences before calling.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — the '{id}' placeholder merely echoes the documented parameter.

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 gives a verb ('Request') and a resource ('KYB') tied to a company via the endpoint path, so the action is identifiable. However, 'KYB' is unexplained domain jargon and the definition never states what requesting KYB actually initiates, so it is only vaguely distinguishable from siblings like companies_request_reseller.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., company must exist, must not already be verified), and no mention of when to prefer a sibling such as companies_request_reseller. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

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