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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: the decision enum values (proceed, review, stop, insufficient_data), the shape of reasons (requirement, met true/false/unknown, fact ids, source, verified_at, fresh_until) and a signed receipt_id, plus what happens when activity is omitted. It stays silent on auth requirements, rate limits, and whether results are cached/stale beyond fresh_until.

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 opening sentence and the return-contract sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the inline enumeration of all 16 activities largely duplicates the schema enum, bloating the description with content already in structured data.

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 correctly shoulders the return-value burden and does so in detail (decision values, reason fields, receipt_id, and the no-activity behavior). Given six parameters and a compliance use case, a note on prerequisites, auth, or freshness limits would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by clarifying the id-vs-name/registry-number fallback path and giving human labels for each activity enum value, but it does not explain amount/currency/jurisdiction beyond what the schema already says.

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 an explicit decision context ('Check a business before an agent pays, signs, books, hires or buys') and details the returned decision vocabulary. It doesn't name or differentiate itself against siblings such as screen or get_business_file, so the agent must infer which is the pre-transaction check versus the file fetch.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context (before paying, signing, booking, hiring, buying) and explains the conditional behavior of omitting `activity`. However, no alternative tool is named for when you want raw status/facts or screening instead, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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