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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it includes closed or winding-down companies, names the returned fields such as summary and payout ranges, and states that Dataconto-listed programs come first.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the scope and then summarizing returned fields and ordering. Every phrase contributes to selecting or understanding the tool.

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 seven optional filters and no output schema, the description usefully names the return contents: summary, qualification, payout range or rates, countries, and Dataconto page. It leaves filter details and pagination to the schema, which covers them, but does not fully explain result ordering beyond the Dataconto-first note.

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 coverage is 100%, and all seven optional parameters have descriptions, including enum meanings for kind, side, and status. The description echoes broad concepts like records/code, payout, and countries but does not add filter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 resource and scope: programs that pay owners for company records or private code, including closed or winding-down companies. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_buyer, but the list framing and return-field summary make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to sibling get_buyer for individual program details. Usage is only implied by the description of listing programs and by the ordering note that Dataconto buyer pages come first.

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