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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 24h cache, the 404 for unknown Business ID with no charge, the payment mechanism (x402 or api_key), and the explicit statement that codes and dates only — never a person. It also discloses that procedures_inscrites summarises specific code families. This goes beyond the annotations without 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?

The description is dense but well-organized: it front-loads the source and scope, then details the content, then the payment and error behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the long parenthetical list of notice types and family codes makes it slightly heavy. It earns its length given the complexity of the data.

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 the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety (readOnly, openWorld), the description is complete: it explains the data source, coverage, ordering, content, error behavior, and payment. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect. The only minor omission is pagination, but the description says 'every notice' and 'newest first', which is sufficient for a first call.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the payment flow (x402 quote vs api_key prepaid credits) and the 404 behavior tied to the id parameter. It does not repeat the schema's regex or example, but it clarifies the operational semantics of the parameters, which is useful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves Finnish trade-register notices from the PRH open data, and it enumerates the exact content (date, record number, notice type, register entry codes, procedures_inscrites, register memberships). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_finnish_company_filing and list_finnish_company_filings by focusing on notices/events rather than filings.

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 clear context: it covers notices since late 2014, newest first, and notes the 24h cache and live data source. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when to select it over filing-oriented siblings. A small gap: no explicit exclusion of when to prefer get_finnish_company_filing.

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