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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: pagination discipline (default and max 25), the ordering (newest first), per-page aggregates (records_total, registers with connector_id/name/count), and a retention obligation on notice text that must travel with quoted records. It stops short of describing error or empty-page behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with resource and row shape, then paging mechanics, then the notice obligation. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the notice sentence is the one piece that sits slightly apart from the call itself.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-shape responsibility and discharges it: rows are citations with register, record type, identifier, source URL and retrieval date, plus page-level records_total and registers. Combined with the paging and volume guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description still earns above baseline by disambiguating node_id ('the graph node id from search_companies hits', explicitly not company_profile's entity_id) and by framing connector_id as selecting one row out of the registers list rather than as an opaque filter.

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?

Names a specific resource (the register records behind one company) with explicit scope (a page at a time) and row shape. It also draws a hard line against siblings by stating node_id comes from search_companies hits and is 'Not the entity_id of company_profile', so an agent can separate it from the many company_* tools 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: read the per-page registers list first to decide what to page, then optionally pass a single connector_id to page just that register. It also notes the fallback (omit connector_id to page every register newest first) and warns of the >100,000-record case that forces limit/offset paging.

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