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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: the price (38 ILS incl. VAT) and the explicit statement that the tool does not take payment. It still doesn't say what the response looks like (a URL string), but the cost/no-payment disclosure is meaningful context.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the cost caveat last. The bilingual English/Hebrew pair repeats the same content, which is mild redundancy but justified for Hebrew-speaking users.

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 link tool with no output schema and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description covers what it returns, what it costs, and what it does not do. Only the return format is unstated.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 9-digit company number as string or integer. The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 concrete outcome — returning a link to order an official company extract (נסח חברה) on IsraBase — which is a specific verb+resource. It is implicitly distinguishable from the data-fetching siblings (get_company, search_companies), but it never names or contrasts them 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for when a user wants to purchase an official extract. There is no stated when-not-to-use case and no pointer to any sibling tool for related needs.

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