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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact — only 'visible' companies are returned — plus a REST endpoint cross-reference, but says nothing about permissions, result ordering, or pagination behavior.

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?

The core meaning is front-loaded in a single short clause, and the REST endpoint reference is useful for cross-referencing. The Hebrew restatement is redundant for most agents and does not earn its place, keeping this below a 5.

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 simple, idempotent read with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but thin: with no output schema, it should say something about the returned row shape or result ordering/pagination, and it offers only an API path as a proxy.

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%: year (1900-2026), limit (max 100, default 20), and offset (max 200000) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or range detail beyond it, 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 verb and resource with a clear scope: companies registered in one year. The parallel siblings (list_companies_by_city, list_companies_by_type) make the slice obvious, but the description never names or contrasts them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the year-based slice; the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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