promoter_background

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the regulatory source set and clarifies the company-field semantics, but it does not disclose result format, limitations of coverage, or how open-world results should be interpreted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a direct invocation instruction. There is no filler or redundant material.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description fully explains what to pass and why, and the schema documents optional fields. The only gap is that it does not hint at the shape or nature of the returned findings, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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% and the context property description already explains that context.company should be the promoter/director's name or a company name. The tool description essentially restates that same guidance without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific action ('Screens'), a specific subject (promoter or director name), specific data sources (SEBI/MCA/registry), and specific outcomes (disqualification, debarment, regulatory penalty). This is enough to distinguish it from general management or litigation lookup 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 gives clear instruction on what to pass as context.company and when that could be a person or a company. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as management_profile, litigation_history, or red_flag_screen, nor does it mention exclusions.

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