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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does fairly well: it names the data source (Sudski Registar), the returned subject matter (legal status, liquidation, bankruptcy), and adds anti-fabrication rules that shape agent behavior. It is silent on failure modes for invalid identifiers, auth/rate-limit behavior, and whether results are cached or live.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, and the usage directive and rules follow in descending priority. The RULES block is somewhat verbose and partly restates the guidance for missing identifiers, but nothing is badly out of order.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back; it does so at a summary level (360-degree profile, legal status, proceedings). Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though return shape granularity (fields, nesting, pagination) is unspecified.

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% for both parameters, so identifier and identifier_type are already documented, including the 'oib' or 'mbs' distinction that the description merely repeats. The description adds no format, validation, or casing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (company profile from Sudski Registar) and scopes the content to legal status and ongoing proceedings, which separates it from get_company_financials, get_company_history, and get_company_true_owners. It also frames itself as the primary entry point, so an agent can place it in the sibling set without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('always use this as the primary starting point for entity due diligence when an identifier is available') and handles the when-not case ('if identifier is missing, interview the user first'). It stops short of naming the natural fallback tool (search_companies) for the no-identifier case, so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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