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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a per-call cost of $0.25 USDC via x402, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It omits failure/coverage behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown or private company).

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 tight sentences: payload contents, use cases, price. No filler, and the core resource is front-loaded so the agent can stop reading after the first clause if needed.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it discloses pricing — both essential for correct invocation. Minor gaps: no mention of data freshness/coverage limits or behavior when the company is not found, which matter for a paid open-world lookup.

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 both parameters (lookup, language) are documented in the schema, including the enum list. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics — no guidance on name format for 'lookup' (ambiguity risk with company names) — 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 (ESG and sustainability profile for a company) and enumerates the exact contents returned: ESG risk rating, E/S/G scores, carbon emissions by scope, net-zero target, renewable energy share, controversies, reporting frameworks, reference URL. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like interzoid_executive_profile, interzoid_stock_info, or interzoid_business_info.

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?

Names three concrete use cases (ESG investing, supplier due diligence, sustainability reporting), which gives the agent a clear selection context. It does not state when-not to use it or point to an alternative sibling (e.g., executive_profile for leadership data), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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