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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing billing ($0.01/call, first 25 free, failed calls free), failure behavior (no match returns 422 and is uncharged), licensing (CC0), and the explicit "reads or computes only and changes nothing." The note that "each call is charged, so repeats are not free" usefully explains the meaning of idempotentHint=false rather than merely restating it.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then usage, then example, then pricing and safety — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The pricing/credits clause is somewhat dense and pushes toward boilerplate, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned facts and the Wikidata/Wikipedia links, so an agent knows what comes back. Failure semantics, cost, and safety are all covered for what is a simple two-parameter read 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a worked example (name=Spotify) and frames the two parameters as a mutually exclusive choice ("by name or Wikidata ID"), which clarifies selection. It does not explain how names are matched (fuzzy vs exact) or how ambiguity between multiple companies is resolved.

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?

Specific resource (company facts from Wikidata) with an enumerated set of returned fields, accepted inputs (name or Wikidata ID), and a concrete example (name=Spotify). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead — company_lookup, company_enrichment, and lei_lookup all sit next to it — so an agent still has to infer the boundary, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Use to enrich leads, vendors and counterparties or ground an answer about a company" gives a clear usage context, and "best for established and listed companies" scopes when it will underperform. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so the agent gets a positive context but must figure out the fallback path itself.

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