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

With no annotations, the description does carry some of the behavioral burden: 'snapshot' implies a read-only aggregate, and it discloses a real limitation ('Insolvency is presence-only'). It does not state permissions, whether results are cached, or how a missing entity is signalled, so coverage is partial.

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 tight sentences with the core payload front-loaded and the limitation placed last where it matters. The register acronym list is dense but each item is informational rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey the return shape — it names the fields (status, register list, insolvency flag) but not their types or structure. Adequate to decide whether to call it, thin on what exactly comes back.

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 description coverage is 100% ('IČO or DIČ' documents the sole required parameter), so the schema already does this work. The description adds no format, normalization, or matching-caveat detail about the identifier beyond what the schema states — baseline 3.

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 names a concrete resource (an entity) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: active/cancelled status, register membership (VR, RZP, IR, NRPZS, RCNS, SZR), and an insolvency presence flag. This is far more specific than a sibling like company_lookup or search_company would imply, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 gives one explicit routing rule — insolvency case detail requires ISIR — which is genuine when-to-go-elsewhere guidance for that facet. However it says nothing about when to prefer this over company_lookup or search_company, leaving the primary selection decision to inference.

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