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

With readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations already present, the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: Wikipedia-sourced descriptions carry a CC BY-SA 4.0 link, filings are excluded, an unknown slug is an error, and the call consumes one unit of the key's quota (with rejected arguments costing nothing). This is exactly the kind of cost/error/attribution detail annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose, then usage, parameters and behavior in a compact three-sentence block with no filler. The field enumeration is slightly long and the parameter/behavior clauses are dense, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: slug provenance, locale effect, attribution, error on unknown slug, and quota cost. Nothing relevant is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sourcing guidance ('the exact company slug from search_companies') that tells the agent where the value must come from, and clarifies that locale changes names, descriptions and headlines rather than only the schema's narrower 'headlines, summaries and notices'.

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 ('Get a company's AiSeek profile') and enumerates the returned content (name, home country, legal name, website, listings, description, facts, relations). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_companies and search_changes, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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 explicit sequencing ('Use it after search_companies') plus two negative cases with the sibling that covers each: search_companies for lookup by name, search_changes for news. This is the full when/why-not/alternative triad.

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