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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, which is clear. The description adds detail about the content (what facts are included) which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose limitations like whether the data cache is stale or the format of the output, but given the simple nature, it's adequate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists all major content areas. It is front-loaded with 'Company facts' and then enumerates specifics. It is slightly long but each item adds value; no fluff.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description is complete in scope of content. It doesn't detail response format or pagination but that's not necessary for a static info retrieval. The list of covered items is comprehensive, making it clear for an agent whether to call this or another sibling.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivial. The description compensates by providing a rich list of what the tool returns, which is crucial for an agent to know if the required info is present. Thus the description provides substantial value beyond the empty schema.

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 that the tool provides company facts and lists the specific categories (licence, number, address, etc.). The verb 'get' and resource 'company info' make it explicit. It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_transfer_price, which are about pricing for services.

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 communicates that this is a general repository for company facts and that the covered details are relevant to an agent needing background information. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for specific service pricing), but the list of contents makes this implicit. It could name alternatives for pricing, but the sibling names are self-explanatory.

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