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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('5 point per returned record'), which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior when the code is unknown, so it adds some but not rich 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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb/resource and punctuated with the returned fields and the cost. Every clause earns its place.

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-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and the pricing unit. The main remaining gap is that it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid code or about how results relate to the search variant.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts an identification code or registry URL with an example. The description adds 'identification code' phrasing but no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (Get one company), the resource (Georgia registry, i.e. NAPR), the qualifying input (by identification code), and the fields returned (name, status, legal form). The word 'one' plus the existence of run_ge_companies_search implicitly differentiates it from the search sibling, though the sibling is never named.

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?

'Get one company ... by identification code' implies a single-record lookup as opposed to a search, which is the right context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of run_ge_companies_search, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g. that you must already have the registry code).

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