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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: ordering (newest first), inclusion of sources, the limit/total_entries relationship, and the important retrieval caveat that a party is 'named' only when editors listed it among an entry's parties, not on mere text occurrence. What it doesn't cover, permissions/rate limits or whether the page is ever absent, is minor for what is evidently a read 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?

Front-loaded with the scope, then the sibling routing rule, then the return/limit caveats; every sentence is load-bearing. The first sentence is long and packs several clauses, which costs a little readability but not enough to be waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and discharges it: entry list, newest-first order, sources, and total_entries vs limit. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (id slug format, limit default 40 and max 200), establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the newest-first semantics and total_entries but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 verb and resource ('everything the site records about one company, person or regulator') and enumerates the scope: role, co-occurring parties, dated entries with sources. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_entries, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use it instead of search_entries when you want one actor's whole history rather than a keyword match.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed.

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