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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned fields and the pricing model ('Flat 10 points per successful run'), which is useful behavioral context. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error/not-found behavior, so gaps remain for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly scoped sentences: the first front-loads purpose, identifiers and outputs; the second adds the cost model. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, registration date, address, legal form) and the cost. It is nearly complete; only failure-mode behavior and access prerequisites are unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'company' field and gives an example. The description restates the accepted forms (registration number or registry URL) but adds no format or validation nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one company from the Australia registry'), names the registries (ASIC / ABN), the accepted identifiers (registration number or registry URL), and enumerates the returned fields. The 'one company' framing cleanly contrasts with the sibling run_au_companies_search without needing to name it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool takes a specific identifier, so an agent can infer it is for a known company versus the search sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative, leaving the routing to run_au_companies_search to inference.

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