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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, whether the record is scoped to the caller's company/API key, or what happens if data is missing. Only a data-field inventory is provided, which is minimal for a no-annotation 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?

It is brief and front-loaded, but it is a bare noun-phrase fragment with no verb or framing, so it reads as a field list rather than a task statement. Nothing is wasted, yet a few words could have made it action-oriented.

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, single-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields is roughly adequate. It nonetheless omits whether the tool is scoped to a specific company and how it relates to the overlapping siblings.

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 single 'lang' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including an enum and a stated default (et), so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about language handling, which is acceptable under the coverage baseline.

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 resource's contents (addresses, phone, e-mail, registry code, opening hours) but supplies no verb, so it's an implicit 'retrieve company details'. It doesn't differentiate from get_opening_hours, which overlaps on one of the listed fields.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing tells the agent whether to call this versus get_opening_hours for hours, or get_faq for contact/company questions. The agent must infer selection from the field list alone.

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