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 fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - that non-public-listing partnerships are included - but says nothing about not-found behavior or record completeness.

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: the resource and key come first, then the scoping note. The mirrored Hebrew sentence is redundant for an English-speaking agent, though it may aid Hebrew query matching, so it is not pure waste.

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 still gives no sense of what a 'full registry record' contains, and openWorldHint is the only signal about scope. For a single-parameter lookup with strong annotations this is adequate but leaves the return shape entirely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted types and the numeric pattern. 'By registration number' restates the schema rather than adding format, range or edge-case guidance, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Full registry record for one Israeli partnership') and the lookup key ('by registration number'). The entity noun 'partnership' inherently separates it from get_company and get_nonprofit, though no sibling is called out 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 you call this when you already have a partnership number. There is no explicit when-to-use framing and no mention of when to prefer search_companies or list_marketplace_listings instead.

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