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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful scope detail ('for one registry code') and enumerates the returned information, but it does not disclose additional behavioral caveats such as data freshness, response format, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core output and scope, while the second provides usage guidance and sibling routes. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what data is returned, when to use it, and which alternatives exist. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection or invocation.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter, registry_code, as an '8-digit commercial register code' (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'one registry code' reinforces the cardinality but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description enumerates the data fields returned (status, tax debt, last filed report, overdue days, insolvency/liquidation notices, distress) and explicitly names sibling tools, so an agent can tell it apart from get_company and risk_signals. However, it lacks an explicit operative verb like 'Returns' or 'Checks', making it slightly less crisp than a full verb+resource statement.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive ('Use this before invoicing') and names clear alternatives: 'Use get_company for the wider financial card, and risk_signals to scan many companies for one signal.' This is direct, actionable guidance that routes the agent correctly.

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