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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about which screening regimes are included (EU/OFAC/UK) and that risk scoring is part of the output, but the text is cut off before the risk element or any cost/runtime behavior is explained.

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 same opening sentence is duplicated verbatim and the second copy is truncated mid-clause, which reads as a broken field rather than a designed description. The content that is present is front-loaded, but the duplication and truncation waste the limited space.

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 and a nested, unlabeled input object, the description should carry the burden of explaining what the returned due-diligence file contains and what inputs are expected. It lists the source categories but stops short of describing the file's structure or the risk output, leaving real ambiguity for a fairly complex 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?

There is effectively one nested "input" object with no documented sub-fields — the schema description just points at an external Apify URL. Coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies, but the description does nothing to compensate for the near-total absence of actual parameter meaning.

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 specific deliverable ("one due-diligence file per company") and enumerates the data sources: official registry data, EU/OFAC/UK sanctions screening, and adverse-media checks. However, it is truncated mid-sentence ("with a risk…") and never distinguishes this tool from siblings that overlap heavily, such as nordic_company_registry or ai_company_enrichment.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With a large sibling set covering company registries and enrichment, an agent has to infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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