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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description builds on this by adding ordering, pagination shape, records_total and registers counts, and a scale warning about securities registers exceeding 100,000 records. It also discloses default and maximum limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by input requirements, pagination behavior, and a scale caveat. Every sentence adds operational information, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: row fields, newest-first ordering, records_total, registers entries with connector_id and counts, and how to page a single register. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with defaults and constraints already documented for all four parameters. The description paraphrases the node_id source and connector_id selection, but it does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's resource and operation: retrieving the register records behind one company, a page at a time. It specifies the row shape (register, record type, identifier, source URL, retrieval date) and ordering (newest first), which differentiates it from sibling tools like company_events and company_financials.

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 description gives actionable guidance: use node_id from search_companies hits, read the registers list first to choose a connector_id, and page with limit and offset. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but it supplies enough context to know when and how to use this tool.

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