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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, consistent with a lookup of a chosen company. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating what is returned (name/location, currency, languages, contacts, rating, districts with service-level meaning, current local date, booking page).

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 usage precondition is front-loaded and the field inventory is one dense sentence with no filler. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause describes actual returned 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does enumerate them well for a simple two-parameter read tool. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the call can fail for an unknown company.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the lang enum list. The description reinforces where `company` comes from but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 makes clear this is a read/return-details tool scoped to a single company, and explicitly ties it to find_companies ('company chosen from find_companies'). That gives sibling differentiation, though the opening phrasing 'At the company chosen from...' is grammatically odd rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

It states the selection context and precondition: use the company picked from find_companies and pass its `company` value. Coverage is clear but there are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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