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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only published rows are returned and that results can be scoped to one register entry, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, pagination behavior, or return shape. This is too thin for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the published-rows constraint is placed prominently. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though the phrasing is slightly cryptic and could be clearer about the operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It conveys the broad concept but leaves key operational and parameter details to inference. An agent would need external context to call it 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?

The schema has two parameters, 'value' and 'scheme', both with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'optionally for one register entry' vaguely suggests a filter but does not explain what 'value' or 'scheme' mean or how they combine to identify a register entry. It compensates only minimally for the missing schema documentation.

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 names the resource ('firms added on top of the register'), the scope ('published rows only'), and an optional filter ('for one register entry'). However, it never uses a clear operation verb such as list or get, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling listing_* tools. The purpose is inferable but not sharply stated.

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?

It mentions an optional filter but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing_describe or dataset_search. No prerequisites, exclusions, or use contexts are provided. The optional filtering hint is the only usage clue.

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