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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating what data is included by default, what sections can extend the response, and how selecting sections changes from latest financials to all years. It does not describe output shape or error behavior, but those are less critical for a read-only profile tool.

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 information-dense without filler: the first sentence inventories the main payload, the second covers optional sections, and the final two sentences provide routing rules. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most important content.

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 that there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly by listing the main data categories and optional sections. It also covers the key decision point of when to use lighter alternatives. Nothing essential for correctly selecting or invoking this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies: both registry_code and sections already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description restates the optional sections and highlights the 'latest accounts vs. all years' behavior, which slightly reinforces the schema but does not add substantially new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the resource (a company profile) and enumerates the exact data categories returned, so an agent knows what to expect. It also names two sibling tools that cover different question types, which helps disambiguation. It falls just short of a 5 because it opens with a noun phrase ('Company profile') rather than an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'.

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 explicit routing guidance: use check_counterparty when the question is only status, tax debt, missing reports, or insolvency, and use search_companies when only a name is available. This is direct, actionable guidance that prevents the agent from overusing get_company.

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