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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: a fixed per-call price of $0.25 USDC via x402. It does not describe failure modes (unknown company) or the confidence-score range, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return contents, then use cases and cost. No redundant filler and nothing that repeats the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (codes, titles, sector, subsector, definition, confidence). Combined with the cost disclosure and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%; both `lookup` and `language` are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and the 'same price in every language' note. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Industry classification for any company') and enumerates the exact outputs (NAICS/SIC codes with official titles, sector, subsector, definition, confidence score). This clearly separates it from enrichment siblings like business_info, company_verification, or esg_profile, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives concrete use-case context (firmographic segmentation, territory/market sizing, compliance, underwriting) which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to a sibling alternative, so no explicit routing guidance.

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