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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful cost information ('1 point per returned record') and enumerates the returned fields, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing pagination or rate-limit behavior, which would be the only remaining gaps.

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?

One sentence for the purpose plus a short cost clause, with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. The cost note earns its place, though the field list could be slightly tighter.

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 read-only, fully param-documented tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary extra work by naming the returned fields (date, type, title, download links). Safety, scope, source and pricing are all covered; only return volume/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 company, max_items and start_page are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that the target is a single company and does not add format or syntax detail 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 (returns annual reports and documents) and resource (one Estonian company, e-Business Register), with the fields returned listed explicitly. It is distinguishable from run_ee_companies and run_ee_companies_search by being document-level rather than company-level, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 phrasing 'one Estonian company' implies the tool is used once a single company is identified, and the required registration number/URL param reinforces that workflow. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no stated preconditions, leaving usage to inference.

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