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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond them: the specific fields returned, the explicit set of fields NOT returned, and Chinese-alias support. It stops short of noting that results are bounded by the limit parameter ('small selection' only gestures at it).

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 short sentences, each carrying information, with the primary capability front-loaded before the exclusion list. Slightly vague wording ('small selection') is the only soft spot; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does the important work of describing what is returned and what is not. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail (limit behavior, query format beyond alias support), which leaves the definition adequate but not fully self-contained.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'Chinese aliases supported' usefully clarifies that the query string accepts Chinese aliases, but the limit parameter (default 5, max 10) is never explained and 'query' semantics remain unspecified.

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 ('Find ... company names, CII profile links and official identity URLs') and enumerates the returned artifacts, so the agent knows exactly what this lookup yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the article-oriented siblings, but the domain (company identity) is distinct enough to disambiguate.

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?

'Does not provide financials, customers, headquarters or verified fact sheets' sets negative scope that helps an agent decide when this tool is insufficient, and 'Chinese aliases supported' hints at query use. However, no alternative tool is named for the excluded data needs, so routing guidance is only implied.

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