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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens to unmatched names or partial matches, whether results are paginated or truncated at 50, or what authentication is required (the access_token parameter is only documented in the schema). It does disclose the batch cap and the notice type, which is real value.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the batch scope front-loaded after the 'PRO' tier marker. The 'PRO.' prefix is terse but informative; nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and batch limits but omits return-value shape, matching behavior, and authentication context. An agent can call it, but cannot anticipate the response or failure modes.

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 67%, and the description usefully extends beyond the schema: it clarifies that `companies` accepts either names or company numbers and enforces the 50-item limit, and restates the `days` recency semantics. The `access_token` parameter is left entirely to its schema description, so not fully complete.

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 states a specific verb (Check), resource (customers/suppliers for insolvency notices) and a distinctive batch scope (up to 50 at once). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling `insolvency_check` it presumably differs from, leaving the single-vs-batch distinction to be inferred from the '50 at once' phrasing.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'at once' and 'up to 50' signal this is the bulk variant, and 'optionally only in the last N days' hints at recency filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use vs `insolvency_check` guidance, no statement about what to do for a single company, and no prerequisites beyond the embedded 'PRO' marker.

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