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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'snapshot' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, nor does it mention potential errors (e.g., entity not found), authorization requirements, or rate limits. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('KYC-style snapshot') and immediately enumerates the key data points (active/cancelled, registers, insolvency record). It is entirely free of filler and efficiently communicates the tool's essence.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description must convey what the snapshot returns. It lists the specific registers (VR, RZP, NRPZS, etc.), the active/cancelled status, and the conditional insolvency record, which covers the main expected outputs. However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure) or handle edge cases like missing entity, which slightly limits completeness.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' as 'IČO or DIČ' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning to this parameter—it does not clarify format expectations, examples, or variations. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 purpose: a KYC-style snapshot of entity status (active/cancelled), the registers it appears in (with specific register abbreviations), and an insolvency-register record if present. It specifies the resource (entity) and the exact data categories returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like company_lookup or validate_cz which serve different lookup/validation purposes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (address_check, check_vat, company_lookup, search_company, validate_cz). It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate for risk assessment or register lookups. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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