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

Annotations already communicate idempotency and non-destructiveness escort, and the description adds pricing ($0.03/site) and the site-based scope. However, it does not mention possible failure modes, rate limits, or what happens when the URL is not a company site. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 description is just two sentences, with the core behavior and output fields stated first, followed by pricing and the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, which fields it extracts, when to use it, and how to route to an alternative. A sample output or failure behavior would be nice but is not essential given the simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents url and x_payment. The description adds context that the url should be a Japanese company's own site, which slightly clarifies the main parameter, but it does not need to expand on the parameters because the schema handles that well.

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 clearly states the tool's function: converting a Japanese company's own website into a standard profile JSON with specific fields (name, address, representative, capital, contact). It explicitly distinguishes itself from enrich_company, so an agent can identify when to use it.

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?

The description gives explicit selection criteria: use this when you have the URL of a Japanese company's own site, and use enrich_company for name/domain lookups with country_hint jp. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its alternative.

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