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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by specifying 'Keyless, no login – built for AI agents and sales' (ease of access), '$0.01/call, x402 (USDC on base)' (pricing and payment method), and 'live GLEIF registry match' (real-time data freshness). No contradictions with annotations. A small deduction for not mentioning rate limits or latency, but the added context is strong.

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 two sentences plus a pricing note – very compact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details the output. The pricing note is helpful but slightly disrupts flow; could be placed in a separate field. No fluff, every sentence adds value. A 5 would require even tighter structuring or separation of concerns, but this is efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description effectively conveys what the tool returns: a 'company card' with website tech stack (CMS, ecommerce, key tech) for domains and a GLEIF registry match (legal name, jurisdiction, status, LEI). This covers the core output. The two parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., JSON structure) but is still complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (both companies and maxConcurrency have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions the pipe syntax for country hints (e.g., 'stripe.com | US') but that is already present in the schema description for companies. The description's main value is at the tool level, not per-parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Turn a domain or company name into one unified company card' with two explicit output components: website tech stack and live GLEIF registry match. This uniquely distinguishes the tool from siblings like company-registry-enricher (which focuses only on registry data) or website-contact-extractor (which extracts contacts). The verb 'turn' and resource 'domain/company name' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions it is 'built for AI agents and sales' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools. For example, it could have noted that company-registry-enricher provides deeper registry data or that counterparty-risk-rollup covers risk, but it does not. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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