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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that queries are performed LIVE from primary sources, not from cache, and gives typical response time. This provides critical behavioral context beyond what annotations would cover.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and covers key points in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's scope, inputs, behavior, performance characteristics, and how it differs from the sibling tool.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: it specifies the input as 'the 9-digit company number (ח.פ)' and marks website as optional. It does not provide further constraints or format details, but adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 states it is a 'fast, cheap pre-screen' that checks registry, insolvency, banking-restriction, and domain only. It explicitly lists what is excluded (sanctions, adverse-media, market, no AI) and distinguishes from the sibling tool check_israeli_company by focusing on a limited set of sources.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: it is a pre-screen, lists the sources checked, mentions same output schema as full check, and specifies input requirements (9-digit company number, optional website). It also sets expectations on response time (8-20s) and timeout (>=30s), implying when to use this faster option.

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