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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the return shape (table code, period, retrieval time, source link), a compliance obligation (the licence attribution line must be shown with the figure), the 'missing' field's plain-sentence behavior including Kreis level, and provenance labeling of a caller-supplied sector. That is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then parameters, then the caveat, so the most important information leads. The prose is dense and slightly run-on, and it is long for a two-parameter tool, but with no output schema most sentences carry needed information.

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 only annotations for the safety profile, the description covers returns, the licence-attribution duty, the missing-data field, and the scoring caveat, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real rationale: why nace must be supplied (no register holds NACE) and that the response records the sector as caller-named. It reinforces node_id's provenance, though that partly repeats the schema text.

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+resource: it returns the Destatis corporate insolvency and enterprise figures for a company's WZ 2008 section and Bundesland. It distinguishes itself from company_profile by clarifying node_id is not entity_id, but it never names the obviously adjacent sibling company_regional_context, so the sector-vs-region boundary is left for the agent to infer.

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 usage context: take node_id from search_companies hits, and pass nace to name the sector because no German register states a company's NACE code. It also supplies a clear when-not caveat ('aggregates for context only, never part of the company's score or status') but does not explicitly route the agent away from company_regional_context.

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