creden_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so: auth-gated fields need CREDEN_EMAIL/CREDEN_PASSWORD, unauthenticated calls still return financials/profile, shareholder names are masked unless on a paid tier, auth data is cached 30 days to avoid burning Creden credits, and auth_data_status reports fetched/cached/error/no-credentials.

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?

Purpose and the web-search exclusion are front-loaded where they matter most, and the Args/Returns blocks are scannable. The Returns list partially duplicates the existing output schema and the example list is long, but no sentence is misleading.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how ambiguous names resolve (candidates, match), ordering of fiscal_years, that director_history carries join/exit dates, and the credential/caching behavior. The output schema exists, so the extra return detail is orientation rather than a required substitute.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: query accepts Thai or English names, partial names, or a 13-digit juristic ID; lang is 'th' (default) or 'en'; full False returns headline metrics while True returns ~50 DBD fields per fiscal year.

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?

States a specific verb and resource set (company profile, financial statements, directors) and names the authoritative source (data.creden.co, DBD-sourced). It clearly separates itself from web search, but never mentions the actual sibling creden_search, so an agent must guess whether a partial-name query belongs here or there.

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?

Strong when-to-use coverage: 'ANY question about a Thai company's revenue, profit, assets... directors', explicit exclusion ('DO NOT use web search'), a preference rule, and five concrete query examples in Thai and English. The only gap is that it gives no guidance relative to creden_search.

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