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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the retrieved data but fails to mention important aspects such as whether partial matches are supported, case sensitivity, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., company not found). This lack of detail could lead to incorrect agent expectations.

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 description is moderately concise but includes a bullet-like list of matching phrases ('corporate registration check, company status finder, ...') which adds redundancy without significant value. The core purpose is stated early, but the extra phrases could be trimmed for better front-loading.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (business address, SIC, CIK/ticker). It does not cover pagination or error scenarios, but for a straightforward lookup tool, the coverage is sufficient for most use cases.

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 the single parameter 'company_name' having a clear description and examples. The description adds value by listing the retrieved fields (address, SIC, CIK/ticker) and specifying the registry (SEC EDGAR), which goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 it searches the SEC EDGAR registry for US public and SEC-registered companies, and lists the specific data retrieved (business address, state of incorporation, SIC industry classification, CIK/ticker identifiers). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover unrelated domains like weather, DNS, or patents.

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 indicates the tool is for corporate registration checks and company status lookups, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are mostly unrelated, so context is implicit, but no exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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