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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that no wallet or payment is needed, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what the sample response contains or any rate limits on the free preview, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

A single sentence with the 'FREE' tag at the front, immediately followed by the purpose and constraints. Every clause earns its place: free status, sample nature, payment context, and no-argument/no-wallet qualifiers. No redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only preview tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains the free sample purpose and confirms no wallet or arguments are required. It could say more about what the sample response actually contains (e.g., which fields), but the core needs for correct invocation are met.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4. The description directly states 'no arguments needed', which reinforces the schema and removes any doubt for the agent. No further parameter detail is possible or needed.

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 states this is a free sample response for company_lookup that shows the shape before paying, which is a specific verb (lookup) and resource (company) with a clear preview purpose. It distinguishes from the paid sibling by explaining the free preview role. It does not restate the full SEC EDGAR + GLEIF LEI merge detail from the title, but the preview nature is clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'No wallet, no payment, no arguments needed' and frames it as a preview 'before paying 0.01 USDC'. This tells an agent exactly when to call it: to inspect the response shape without payment. It clearly contrasts with the paid company_lookup tool, making the when-to-use condition obvious.

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