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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it checks specific registries and statuses, returns a verdict with per-check sources and coverage map, is factual not credit, and buyers are not charged on failure. It also mentions pricing and query requirements, leaving no ambiguity about its nature.

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?

Description is informative and packs many details in a few sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It uses clear punctuation and lists. A bit verbose but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, included checks, verdict structure, pricing, and supported countries. However, it lacks details on the exact return format and any rate limits or authentication needs, which are not critical but would enhance 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?

Description explains the required parameters (country and id) and mentions LEI, VAT, and domain in the checks, but does not explicitly describe the purpose of optional parameters (lei, vat, eori, domain) in the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a comprehensive one-call verification of a European company, covering registry, insolvency, VAT, LEI, sanctions, EORI, and domain age, outputting a verdict. It specifies query parameters and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_insolvency_fr and screen_sanctions by being a combined check.

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 implies this tool is for a broad verification when multiple checks are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus individual sibling tools like lookup_company_fr or validate_vat_eu. However, it provides clear context on what it covers.

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