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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered newest-first and the tool costs '1 point per returned record', a billing trait an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the ordering and cost disclosure is meaningful added context.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose followed by return fields and cost. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on packing of five concepts into one sentence is slightly heavy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential input modes, the returned field set, result ordering, and per-record cost. It leaves pagination behavior relative to start_page/max_items implicit, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with examples and constraints, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description restates the identity input (UIC/registry URL) but adds no new syntax or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 (List) and resource (announced acts of a Bulgaria company in the Commercial Register), and enumerates the returned fields (announcement date, act type, title, document link). This cleanly distinguishes it from run_bg_companies, which covers company master data rather than filings.

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?

Gives the accepted input forms (UIC/ЕИК or registry URL) so the agent knows how to invoke it, but never states when to choose this over siblings like run_bg_companies or when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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