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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description isn't needed for safety. What it adds is the substantive caveat that only recent SHAB publications plus Zefix history for the companies those name are held, so an older unchanged company is absent from search but not gone — a critical interpretation rule that no annotation or schema conveys.

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 lead sentence front-loads purpose and the call-before-concluding rule, and every later sentence carries a distinct constraint. The enumeration of return fields (counts, canton breakdown) mildly duplicates what the output schema already provides, which keeps it from a perfect score, but the density-to-length ratio is good.

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 zero parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema handling return values, the only remaining risk was misinterpretation of coverage — and the description closes that with the SHAB/Zefix scoping caveat and the load_company fallback. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool correctly is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 names the resource (dataset coverage and freshness) and enumerates exactly what it reports: publication date range, last successful fetch, company and publication counts, analysed-company count and start point, and per-canton breakdowns. It also explicitly separates itself from load_company, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

It gives a direct when-to-use rule: 'call it before concluding something does not exist.' It also names the alternative path for missing companies (load_company fetches by UID) and states that all analysis filters search only the analysed subset, which is exactly the condition an agent needs to decide between this tool and a search tool.

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