promoter_background

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

The description discloses the type of records it checks (disqualification, debarment, penalty) and the data sources, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. No contradictions with the read-only or open-world hints.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The instruction is front-loaded and the supplementary guidance about screening a company's leadership is efficiently placed.

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?

Given the nested object schema and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and how to specify the target. It does not describe output format, but that is not required here.

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 description clarifies the main parameter (context.company) but does not add meaning for other fields like date, listed, or sector. The schema already provides descriptions for most parameters, so the added value is limited.

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?

Clearly states the tool screens a promoter or director against SEBI/MCA/registry sources for disqualification, debarment, or penalties. The specific verb 'screens' and the resource list make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from general company research 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?

Provides explicit instruction on how to pass the target (individual or company) via context.company. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like red_flag_screen or litigation_history, but the purpose is so specific that when to use it is implied.

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