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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so exceptionally well. It honestly discloses coverage limitations (Spain and France only, UK and Hungary unresolvable), anonymous-trial rate limits, auth requirements, and the exclusion of natural persons. It even flags that coverage is published honestly rather than hidden.

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 appropriately structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains arguments, then coverage limitations. Every section adds necessary information and no sentence is wasted. It is long but only because the tool genuinely has several non-obvious constraints.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a niche domain, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input format, auth, trial limits, country support, known gaps, and excluded cases, and it indicates the kind of result (active, dissolved, insolvency, etc.) without needing a full return schema.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does. notice_id is defined with an example, the required notice type, and exclusions; api_key is explained with where to get it and the fallback anonymous behavior. This far exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 the tool's function: given an awarded EU TED notice, resolve the winning company's current commercial-registry status. It is specific about the verb, resource, and the core question it answers, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool find_missing.

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 usage boundaries: the input must be an AWARD notice, not the original contract notice, and natural-person awardees are excluded. It also explains which countries are currently supported. However, it never explicitly mentions when to choose this tool over find_missing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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