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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds 'Premium API' and cost ($0.25 USDC via x402), which are behavioral traits not present in annotations. It also clarifies the scope of the returned data. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or data availability limitations, so it's not fully exhaustive.

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 padding. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and cost/payment info is placed at the end. Every word adds value.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept ('profile' with facility types). It doesn't detail response structure or error conditions, but the annotation's safety profile and simple input make this acceptable.

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 the schema already describes 'lookup' clearly as a company name. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a profile of a company's corporate facilities' and enumerates location types (headquarters, regional offices, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like interzoid_building_profile (single building) and interzoid_business_info (general 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention interzoid_building_profile for single-building queries or any exclusions. The implied use case is clear, but the agent must infer it; no explicit when/when-not is given.

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