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

Discloses traits beyond the annotations: it consumes credits, persists a verification record (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), and returns a verdict in three named categories. This is substantive behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a credit-costing, record-creating call.

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?

Front-loaded with 'KYB: verify a legal entity' and the coverage list is informative, though the single run-on sentence is dense. Every clause contributes, but it could be broken for 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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring safety hints, the description covers what the call produces, what it excludes, and its cost implications. 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?

With 100% schema coverage, both parameters (regNo, country) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (legal entity) and enumerates exactly what one call covers: register card, register status, live VAT checks, and EU/OFAC sanctions. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_vat or get_company, which cover narrower slices.

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?

Frames the use case ('as a customer or partner') and gives an explicit exclusion ('does not cover owners, representatives or persons'), which steers the agent toward screen_name for persons. It stops short of naming that sibling alternative by name.

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