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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the methodology behind the EUR totals: they represent committed procurement value, counted once per procurement, deduplicated across sources and lifecycle stages, while excluding tenders/budgets. This is valuable behavioral context that the user would not know from the annotations alone. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or other annotations.

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 composed of two precise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies a critical nuance about the spend figures. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler, making it both concise and highly informative.

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 with one required parameter, a clear output schema, and read-only annotations. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the output semantics deeply, including the deduplication logic. There is no need to explain return values since the output schema exists, and the description covers business meaning and exclusions.

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 only parameter 'afm' is already well described in the input schema as a 9-digit ΑΦΜ. The description repeats this and adds context about what the profile contains, but does not introduce new parameter-specific constraints or examples. Given the high schema coverage, the description adds little beyond a baseline understanding.

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 states that the tool returns a profile of a legal entity by AFM, including name, role, and spend/receipt statistics. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_act and get_chain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function effectively.

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 implies that this is the tool for obtaining a holistic entity profile, with details on the meaning of the stats. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as entity_counterparties or spend_by_cpv. The usage context is implied but not stated directly.

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