company-due-diligence

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions querying SEC EDGAR and optionally analyzing the website, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, failure modes (e.g., company not public), or what happens to data. The description lacks depth on side effects or restrictions.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loads purpose, and uses no filler words. It efficiently conveys the tool's functionality and optional behavior.

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?

Description covers the tool's two sources and output type (structured report with risk flags) but lacks details on report fields, error handling, or performance. Given no output schema, more specificity on return value would improve completeness.

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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds that providing a domain adds website intelligence, which slightly extends the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate; the added value is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs due diligence on any company, querying SEC EDGAR for public data and optionally analyzing the website for contact and legitimacy signals, returning a structured report with risk flags. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'company-intel' (likely SEC-only) and 'web-company-intel' (likely website-only).

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?

Description implies usage for company due diligence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It notes that the website analysis is optional, which provides some context, but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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