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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing what the returned text contains (regulator, class, verification level, register source, cite URL, dataset version/licence) and includes an important caveat about absence not implying absence of licence. This goes beyond the annotations' basic safety profile, though the description doesn't mention any pagination or error behavior (not needed here given the single-record nature and output schema).

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 and front-loaded with the action and resource. Each sentence contributes: id format, return contents, caveat, and usage guidance. No fluff, but it is slightly longer than necessary; still, every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return details are covered. The description addresses usage context, alternatives, id format, and a key limitation. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke 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% and the schema already describes the id format. The description reinforces and elaborates with concrete examples (e.g., 'insurer:micronesia-century-insurance-company-ltd') and explains the id must come from search. This adds practical clarity beyond the schema's bare description, so it earns a point above 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 explicitly states 'Fetch one record by an id returned from search' with concrete id format examples. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_insurer, get_group, and get_country_summary by stating that for ordinary questions those should be preferred. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Provided for ChatGPT deep research and company knowledge; for ordinary questions prefer get_insurer, get_group or get_country_summary.' It also specifies the required id format and gives an example, making it clear when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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