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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.95 Base USDC), the paid endpoint, and that it is not a first call. However, it does not describe the output format (JSON, file), error behaviors, or data freshness. It also implies a read operation via the GET endpoint but does not explicitly state it. These gaps limit its transparency in a context where annotations are absent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes usage guidance and cost in a few short sentences. Minor redundancy exists with the cost mentioned twice ('$0.95' in the first sentence and again as '$0.95 Base USDC'), which slightly detracts but does not undermine readability.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage order, cost, and endpoint. However, it omits what the returned 'dossier' looks like (e.g., JSON structure, fields) and does not address potential failure modes. Given the tool is part of a pipeline (not a first call), the missing output details may mislead the agent about the response shape.

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 schema already clearly explains the domain parameter ('Company website domain e.g. stripe.com (not a full URL)'). The description only repeats 'by domain' without adding extra constraints or conversion details, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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 states precisely what the tool does: it returns a 'Full attested KYB dossier by domain', which is a specific resource. It also differentiates itself from siblings by noting it provides a 'per-field source trail' and is meant 'after lion_company_research/enrich', making its role clear relative to the other tools.

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 lists when to use: 'Use after lion_company_research/enrich when you need per-field source trail' and when not to: 'Not a first call'. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended chain of tool usage and the decision condition.

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