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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the cost ('10 point per returned record') and a detailed list of returned fields. But it omits prerequisites such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, input formats, return fields, and cost without filler. It is dense but every clause adds value, though the long list of return fields could be slightly more structured.

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 single-record lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, registration date, etc.) and disclosing the cost. It covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool, though it could mention any authentication or error-handling expectations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the specific registration number prefixes accepted (HE, EE, AE, S, BN) and explicitly allowing a registry link, which helps the agent format the input correctly.

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 ('Get one organisation') and resource ('from the Cyprus registry (Registrar of Companies, DRCOR)'), and specifies the lookup keys (registration number or registry link). Distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by scope ('one organisation').

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 makes clear this is for retrieving a single entity by exact identifier or link, which implies when to use it versus a search. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (run_cy_companies_search) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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