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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the data source and license (Wikidata, CC0), the uncharged-404 no-match behavior, per-call price ($0.01 via x402 USDC or card key), the 25-free allowance, and that repeats are charged. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false rather than contradicting them.

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?

Purpose and inputs are front-loaded, then fields, then pricing and safety notes; nearly every sentence carries information. Minor redundancy: 'Reads or computes only and changes nothing' largely repeats readOnlyHint, and the title restates the same scope.

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 usefully enumerates the profile fields returned and covers the no-match case and cost model. It does not describe response structure or how sparse Wikidata records may be, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description mainly restates the two inputs and adds a worked example. It also advertises 'website domain' as a lookup key while the schema exposes only id and name, leaving the agent to guess how a domain is passed.

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 verb+resource (company lookup by name, website domain or Wikidata id) and enumerates the returned profile fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like lei_lookup, domain_whois or check_counterparty without opening the schema. The 'Example: name=Spotify' anchor makes the invocation concrete.

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 use cases (enrich a lead, vendor or counterparty; ground an answer about a business), which is clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition relative to siblings such as lei_lookup or company.

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