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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: it never starts an assessment, every fact is tied to a citing record with a last-confirmed timestamp, and it fully enumerates risk_state semantics including sole_trader never being scored. This goes well beyond the structured hints, though it does not describe pagination or response framing.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of semicolon-separated clauses (the risk_state enumeration in particular) that is hard to scan. Some of this detail earns its place with no output schema, but the presentation is not structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (plain-word facts plus citations/confirmation dates), the register sources, and complete risk_state semantics. Coverage is strong; a brief note on what happens when no record exists would close the remaining gap.

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 node_id (graph node id from search_companies, not entity_id) and locale (en default). The description largely repeats those semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (one company as the dashboard's Network view shows it) and keys it to node_id, explicitly distinguishing it from company_profile's entity_id and from search_companies. An agent can tell exactly which of the ~35 siblings to call given a node_id.

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 trigger (a node_id carried by search_companies hits, not company_profile's entity_id) and the read-only/should-not-be-used-for-assessment boundary. It implies, rather than explicitly maps, the alternative to use when the caller holds an entity_id instead.

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