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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the billing model (1 point per company), the free quota (20/day) and the reset time. It omits auth requirements and error behavior for invalid identifiers, but the cost/quota disclosure is genuinely beyond schema scope.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the return preview and cost model. The field list is long but informative; nothing is redundant filler.

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 usefully previews returned fields and adds the cost/quota contract an agent needs before calling. Minor gaps remain about how results map to input identifiers and partial-failure handling.

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% and the single parameter already enumerates accepted identifier forms (CR number, 8-digit BRN, exact name). The description adds only the count range, which the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 and resource: batch-query holographic profiles for 1–10 Hong Kong companies, and enumerates what comes back. The 'batch' framing clearly distinguishes it from the single-entity search_companies and the filings-oriented siblings.

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 1–10 company scope and per-company cost imply this is for retrieving full profiles of several known companies at once, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as search_companies or a single-company lookup.

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