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

The only annotation is openWorldHint: true, which suggests external interactions. The description adds pricing information (non-functional but useful) but does not disclose other behaviors such as side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotation already implies. With openWorldHint present, the bar is lower, yet more detail (e.g., 'requires network calls', 'may have latency') would improve transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first conveys the core purpose, and the second provides pricing. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value (pricing is relevant for cost-aware agents). No fluff or redundancy, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

The tool is complex with a nested event_info object and various required/optional fields, but the schema is thorough (100% coverage) and an output schema exists. The description, while short, covers the overall purpose and the event_info description adds analytic detail. Minor gaps: it does not enumerate event types or mention prerequisites (like obtaining company_id via search_company_candidates), though these are in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the rich schema.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a general context phrase ('Evaluates how a supply chain risk event may affect a target company through multi-tier supply chain propagation analysis') but does not provide any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: continuously monitor global supply chain risk events and evaluate their impact on a target company. It uses specific verbs ('monitors', 'evaluates') and names the resource (supply chain risk events, target company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are data retrieval or list-based, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when there is a supply chain risk event to evaluate, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The schema further clarifies required event types and modes, but no direct comparison to sibling tools or 'when not to use' guidance is given. The implied context is adequate but not explicit.

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