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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a cost limit ('1 unit') and an operational constraint. It does not disclose auth needs or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly delimited Inputs/Returns/Limits sections. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition or 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?

With an output schema present, the return values need not be explained in prose, and the description still summarizes them. Inputs, usage context, and the unit limit are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating the accepted field values (name, status, address, legal_form, creation_date, activity) where the schema only offers 'One field, e.g. status'. It also restates the as_of format and gives an entity_id example, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (show) and resource (evidence behind a company's stated facts) and details exactly what that evidence comprises — served value, competing values, sources, hashes, and match decisions. This is far more precise than the sibling names alone, letting an agent distinguish it from lookup_company or explain_match.

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 states both when to use it ('justify an answer in a review or an audit') and when not to ('Don't use it to look a company up'), and routes the agent to the prerequisite tool resolve_company for the entity_id. Explicit when/when-not plus a named alternative.

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