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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fact categories (useful since there is no output schema) but discloses nothing about behavior beyond content, such as freshness or response shape.

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 content is front-loaded with the subject (Verified facts about Minairal) followed by a dense content enumeration. It is a single long sentence with many comma-separated items, which is slightly unwieldy but every item earns its place as return-value documentation given no output 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?

With no output schema, the description effectively compensates by enumerating the full set of fact categories a caller can expect, which is the key completeness requirement here. The only gaps are language handling and explicit routing versus overlapping siblings.

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 lang parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum and default. The description never mentions language behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — 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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (company facts) and enumerates the exact categories returned — registration, team, stores, service centres, models, contacts. An agent can distinguish it as the broad company-facts source. However, it overlaps with siblings (contact/official links vs get_contact_options, stores with addresses vs list_locations) without acknowledging or differentiating from them.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite clear content overlap with get_contact_options and list_locations. The only usage signal is implicitly inferred from the content list, which leaves the agent to guess routing.

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