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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first'), the returned fields, and a cost signal ('1 point per returned record'), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite start_page/max_items params, nor about auth needs or what 'consult mode' means.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by the output list and cost note. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the sort order, which is genuinely helpful. It falls short only on pagination and the meaning of 'consult mode', minor gaps for a read-only lookup tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with formats and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no syntax for RCS vs URL, no pagination semantics), so the 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 ('List') and resource ('RESA publications of one Luxembourg company'), identifies the registry domain (LBR/RCS), and even enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from run_lu_companies and run_lu_companies_search without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'of one Luxembourg company' implies a single-entity lookup, distinguishing it implicitly from list/search siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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