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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that per-domain source, freshness, and missingness are preserved, and that partial failures return both acquired and missing data simultaneously. This goes beyond a bare 'returns profile' statement, though it doesn't cover auth or permission nuances.

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?

Two dense sentences: purpose first, behavioral guarantees second, and a concrete input example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 explains the returned content domains, provenance/freshness/missingness handling, and partial-failure behavior, plus a full invocation example. It could be more explicit about the output shape, but the key contract is clear.

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%; the schema already describes corporateNumber as a 13-digit string with an example. The description repeats the same example and constraint, adding no new parameter semantics beyond an inline JSON call example, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a concrete verb/resource: returns a company profile containing four named domains (basic info, subsidies, notifications, financials) keyed by 13-digit corporate number. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookup_corporate, so it isn't a perfect 5, but the named domains make intent clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings like lookup_corporate or search_corporate_by_number. The description implies a consolidated-profile use case, but it never names alternatives or provides selection/exclusion conditions.

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