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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses approximate latency ('about a minute') and the payment-chain restriction. It does not describe pagination or how `limit` billing interacts with returned records, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload before the practical constraints. Every clause earns its place. The clipped 'Not offered on Solana: pay on Base or Polygon' is slightly terse but effective.

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 ten parameters and no output schema, the description usefully doubles as a summary of the returned record and warns about cost/latency before the agent commits. It compensates well for the missing output schema, though it says nothing about what an empty or no-match result looks like.

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%, with enums and defaults documented inline, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description's field list describes the returned record rather than the inputs and adds no syntax or matching nuance. 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?

Names a specific resource (German commercial register / Handelsregister) and enumerates exactly what the record contains — court, number, legal form, status, seat, capital, representation rules, officers, history. The jurisdictional scoping ('the company is German') implicitly separates it from the generic `company` sibling, but it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Explicit trigger condition: 'Use when: the company is German.' It also adds a concrete payment constraint ('Not offered on Solana: pay on Base or Polygon'), which prevents a failed call. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for non-German companies, so routing is only half-specified.

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