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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does real work: it discloses per-domain provenance, freshness, and missingness tracking, plus partial-failure semantics where acquired data and gaps are returned together. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior, which a read-only tool with no annotations would ideally cover.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the behavioral caveats, and no filler. The trailing input example is mildly redundant against the schema but does make the required 13-digit format salient for a bilingual agent.

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 composite read tool with no output schema and a single well-documented parameter, the description covers what is returned, that each domain carries provenance/freshness/gaps, and how partial failures surface. The main omission is any sense of the returned object's structure or size, but naming the four domains largely compensates.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's input example is the same value already given in the schema ("1180301018771") and adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond it.

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: it returns a company profile keyed by 13-digit corporate number, and it enumerates the four domains covered (basic info, subsidies, filings, financials). This is far more precise than the generic lookup/search siblings, but it never names those siblings or says how this composite profile differs from calling lookup_corporate or search_corporate_by_number.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for preferring this composite profile over the lookup/search siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent content is an input example, which is not routing guidance.

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