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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: no login required, $0.01/call cost, and the live GLEIF registry match. This informs the agent about authentication, cost, and real-time data aspects, though it does not discuss rate limits or pagination.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences covering core functionality and key operational attributes (keyless, pricing). Every clause earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded. No fluff or 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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the output contains (tech stack for domains, GLEIF legal name/jurisdiction/status/LEI) and the operational context (keyless, cost). It does not describe return format or error handling, but the description covers the essential scope.

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 input schema already provides rich descriptions for both parameters, including country hint syntax and LEI behavior. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond a high-level summary, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 domain or company name into a unified company card with tech stack and GLEIF registry data. It uses a specific verb ('turn into') and names the resource (domain/company name) and output components, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual data points.

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 implies usage context by stating it is 'built for AI agents and sales' and highlights its keyless, low-cost nature, which suggests when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cases where one only needs, say, registry data or tech stack separately, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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