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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content and, valuably, warns against misreading the figures as a safety metric — a real behavioral caveat beyond the name. It says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or freshness of the register, which matters for an unpaginated list tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope before the caveat: scope first, then the anti-misinterpretation warning. Dense and waste-free, though 'how many went beyond the first report' is slightly elliptical phrasing for a returned field.

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-param list tool with no output schema, the description names the fields returned and cautions on interpretation, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only practical details like result-set size or ordering, which the schema and annotations also do not supply.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no filters by framing it as an unfiltered 'every company' listing.

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 resource and scope: 'Every company with at least one published case', plus the three values returned (case count, count beyond first report, share). It is clearly distinct from get_company (single-company detail) and search_cases, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement — an agent can infer this is the roster/enumeration entry point before drilling into get_company — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus register_totals or get_company. The one explicit boundary given is interpretive ('not a safety ranking'), not selection guidance.

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