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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent external call. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that it consumes CompanyProof claim credits, writes to the account evidence ledger, preserves a proof record, and that monitoring requires an eligible live key — real side-effect and prerequisite context not present in annotations.

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 core action sequence followed by cost/side-effect disclosure. No filler, though the four-clause first sentence is denser than it needs to be.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the pipeline, the credit consumption, the ledger write and the monitoring prerequisite, leaving little an agent needs before calling it.

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 every parameter (message-style answer, structured claims, company object, monitor, idempotency_key) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter format or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 verb chain (resolve, compare, preserve, monitor) against a clear resource (company claims), so an agent knows this verifies claims rather than merely fetching a profile. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_company_profile or search_companies, but the 'compare supported claims with current evidence' framing is distinctive enough to separate it from a plain lookup.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools. The only conditional hint is 'optionally monitor verified claims for change', which describes a feature rather than routing the agent between alternatives.

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