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

With no annotations to rely on, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read-like retrieval and hints at what will come back, but it doesn't disclose potential auth behavior, handling of unknown IDs, data recency, or any restrictions beyond that.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a compact list of content categories, no filler, and no repetition of schema information. The primary verb and resource appear on first read.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the key output semantics via the listed content types, which is largely sufficient. It does not address edge cases like missing or invalid company IDs, but the overall call guidance is adequate for normal 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%, so both 'id' and 'api_key' are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter guidance, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('company details') with an explicit ID constraint, and lists the concrete report contents (case file, legal registry, contacts, public contract history). This makes its purpose obvious and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and coverage tools.

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?

Use is implied: call this when you have a company ID and want comprehensive details for that specific company. However, it never explicitly mentions the sibling tools as alternatives for finding IDs first, and gives no 'when not to use' guidance.

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