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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'active insolvency proceedings' and provides Czech terminology, but does not disclose that only_active=false can return closed/dismissed cases, nor any rate limits or response format.

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?

Three concise sentences pack purpose, output, and use case without filler. Every sentence 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 rich schema and annotations, the description provides enough to select the tool. It lacks output structure details, but no output schema exists and the simple return type ('active insolvency proceedings') is sufficient for a search operation.

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% with thorough parameter descriptions (e.g., DOB's warning about false positives). The description merely restates 'by name and optional date of birth,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the 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 the tool searches ISIR for an individual person by name and optional DOB, returning active insolvency proceedings. The phrase '(FO)' and 'individual person' distinguishes it from corporate lookup siblings like check_ico_insolvency.

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 notes it is 'Used to screen statutory persons in KYC and DD workflows,' providing clear use context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling names plus the person-specific framing imply when to use this versus the ICO-based check.

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