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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the set of external sources actually consulted, but it does not explain the idempotentHint=false behavior (whether repeated identical calls can return differing scores) or any rate/cost implications of a live external lookup.

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 purpose and return summary are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it documents all four parameters despite zero schema coverage. What is missing is the decision context against sibling tools, which matters for a read-only screening call in a dense tool family.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: entity_name as full legal name, country as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, kvk_number as an optional 8-digit Dutch registration, and domain as optional. It adds real meaning (format constraints, optionality) beyond the bare schema types, though it omits any guidance on when kvk_number or domain materially improve the result.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Company check on a business') and enumerates the actual checks performed (sanctions screening, country risk, Dutch KVK register, website domain). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as sanctions_screen, get_trust_score, or get_compliance_report.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given the crowded sibling set (sanctions_screen, sanctions_preview, get_trust_score, verify_lead), the agent has no stated basis for choosing check_entity over these alternatives.

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