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

The description adds meaningful context beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing that some countries only have GLEIF/LEI data and directing to alternatives for fuller records. It stops short of describing pagination, rate limits, or result shape.

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 dense single sentence that front-loads the core action and packs country specifics into a compact list. It is slightly long but every element earns its place.

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 the tool's multi-country scope and simple annotations, the description is largely complete: it specifies supported countries, data source limitations, and alternatives. It lacks any mention of the response format or pagination, which would be useful with no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description elevates country semantics by mapping each country to its data source and giving examples, which helps the agent select valid inputs. It omits unspecified country default behavior.

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 'Search non-Czech business registries by company name' and enumerates supported countries with their specific registries, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_company and lookup_company_by_vat.

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 explicitly names alternatives for exact VAT data (lookup_company_by_vat or get_company with VAT) and for SE full data (get_company), telling the agent when not to use this tool. The 'non-Czech' qualifier also sets clear boundaries.

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