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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context: government-sourced data, exact return fields, canonical status values, confidence levels, data freshness, and a caution about 'unknown'. No behavioral claims contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage before enumerating return fields. The return-field list is lengthy but necessary because there is no output schema. It is well structured with no obvious 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?

For a simple two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output shape, and a key warning about 'unknown'. The main gap is the absence of input parameter guidance, which matters given 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about what 'country' or 'registry_id' should contain, their formats, or examples. It only mentions these fields as returned values, leaving the two required input parameters semantically undocumented.

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: verify a company's active/dissolved/etc. status in FirmaDB. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the output as a 'compact decision rather than a full company profile', which separates it from firmadb_get_company and search 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?

Gives clear use cases (KYB, vendor checks, CRM hygiene) and states the decision-oriented scope versus a full profile. It also warns not to treat 'unknown' as active and suggests human review or using the source URL. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool to use for full profiles.

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