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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the credit cost, the result cap (up to 5 records), the two supported registries, and the returned field set. It omits failure behavior (no match found), permission/auth requirements, and whether results are cached or live.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, input, return shape, and cost. No filler, though the input sentence largely duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields, disclosing cost, and bounding result count. Missing only edge-case behavior (no-match/error handling) and permission requirements for a verification call.

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 the schema already documents both parameters including the enum and example formats. The description's restatement ('country and a query that is either a registration number or a company name') adds no syntax or nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (verifies) and resource (company against its official state registry) plus the outcome (legal status). The registry scoping (FR SIREN/SIRET, GB Companies House) makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like screen_sanctions or verify_vat without opening any 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 implies the context of use (checking a company against an official registry) and tells the agent which countries and query forms are valid, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as enrich_company. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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