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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that results come from an official register, but it does not describe output form, coverage limits, or whether checks are real-time.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. Every element (check action, target states, official register source) earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter read-only check, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with no output schema, it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., boolean, status details, dates), leaving a meaningful gap.

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 both country and org_number are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 check action and enumerates the target states (bankrupt, liquidation, restructuring, distress) plus the data source (official register). It is clearly distinct in subject matter from siblings like screen_sanctions or get_vat_rates, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

The description implies usage for insolvency/distress checks, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. An agent must infer that this is the right tool for distress screening rather than, for example, sanctions screening.

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