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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to explain the safety profile. Pricing ('$0.025/call after 5 free/day') is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields. However, it does not say whether failures are per-item or how partial failures are handled in a batch, so it omits the most important operational behavior to disclose here. A 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by use cases and pricing. No filler, though the pricing parenthetical is somewhat tacked on at the end rather than integrated.

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 description includes an output schema, so return values do not need explanation, and the item cap of 25 is already in both the schema and the annotation title. Its remaining gap is not explaining per-item error handling for partial batch failures, which matters for a 25-item concurrent tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the nested item fields already document query, country, and jurisdiction. The description restates the accepted identifier types (names, registration numbers, domains), which is consistent with the schema but adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Concurrently resolves multiple corporate entity names, registration numbers, or domains across national registries') and makes the batch scope explicit. It does not explicitly name the sibling resolve_entity as the single-entity alternative, leaving the batch-vs-single distinction implicit.

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?

It lists favorable scenarios ('agent data pipelines, CSV processing, and batch supplier onboarding'), which implies when to use it. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead, for example a single-entity resolve_entity call or a domain-specific alternative.

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