Israel Business Intelligence MCP

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

The description discloses a temporary suspension status — a behavioral trait not visible in annotations. It also reinforces the non-destructive, read-only posture by telling the user not to sign or send payments. This adds meaningful value beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the most important information (suspension). Every sentence earns its place: the status, the available alternative, and a direct warning. No wasted words.

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 tool that is currently suspended, the description adequately communicates unavailability and the existence of free previews. However, it never explains what the tool actually does when functional, which is critical for an agent evaluating whether to use this tool at all. Schema richness covers parameters but not the tool's core purpose.

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 92%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the schema's high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 never states what the tool does. It only announces that paid reports and x402 payments are suspended and warns against signing or sending payments. There is no verb+resource relationship or mention of risk assessment, making the purpose unclear beyond the tool's name.

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 provides some context: paid reports are suspended and free previews remain available, implying the user should use a free preview instead. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state any conditions for when this tool should be invoked versus avoided, leaving the guidance partly implicit.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Do not sign or send a payment' warning is consistent with these. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — the temporary suspension pending commercial-readiness review. But it never states what happens if the tool is invoked (error? no-op? empty response), leaving the operational behavior undisclosed.

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, all earning their place, with the suspension status front-loaded. 'Free previews remain available' and 'Do not sign or send a payment' are both actionable. The brevity is commendable, though it is achieved by omitting substance rather than by condensing it.

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 complex tool with 21 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers only the suspension status. An agent cannot learn what the tool does, what it returns, or how the required parameters relate to the authorization workflow. The single 'free previews remain available' hint is the only gesture toward the broader context.

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?

With 21 parameters and only 19% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameter semantics, and it contains zero parameter information. There is no guidance on the required fields (supplier_company_number, invoice_number, invoice_date, amounts) or on the nested official_verification object. Nothing compensates for the massive schema coverage gap.

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 is a suspension notice, not a statement of function. It never says the tool authorizes Israeli invoice payments; it only references 'paid reports and x402 payments' in passing. An agent must infer the tool's purpose from its name alone, making this nearly as uninformative as a tautology.

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 gives explicit exclusion guidance ('Do not sign or send a payment') and directs agents toward free previews as a remaining path. However, it never names the specific alternative tools among the siblings (e.g., preview_israeli_invoice_payment_gate_free), and it offers no positive statement of when or how the paid tool should be used.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds helpful context by clarifying this is a free informational inspection with no parameters. It does not contradict annotations and adds the practical behavioral trait of being free with zero input requirements.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the most important signal ('Free:') and then enumerates the exact topics covered. Every phrase adds information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and has a simple informational purpose, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know before calling it. It names the specific categories of information the tool provides, making the return expectations clear even without an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description meaningfully explains what the agent will learn without needing schema details, compensating for the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspect') and a clear resource (Israel company-verification capabilities, paid/free boundaries, evidence scope, pricing, limitations). It clearly distinguishes itself from the paid and preview sibling tools by signaling this is a free informational entry point.

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 opening 'Free:' and the focus on exact paid/free boundaries and pricing give clear context that this tool should be used to understand service limits and costs before using paid alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use when...', but the intended use case is strongly implied.

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

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

The annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable operational context beyond the annotations: the paid service is temporarily suspended, free previews remain available, and the agent is instructed not to sign or send payment. This is useful behavioral guidance.

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 extremely concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the most critical operational status and closes with a clear prohibition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description omits the tool's actual purpose and return behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. While the suspension notice is important, an agent cannot understand what this tool does or what invoking it would return.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'language' parameter or otherwise clarify parameter usage.

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 never states what the tool does. There is no verb or resource indicating that this tool retrieves Israeli company changes. It only describes a temporary suspension of paid reports and payments, leaving the core function to be inferred from the tool name alone.

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 that this paid tool should not be used during the suspension and that free previews are an alternative. However, it does not explicitly name a specific sibling tool or state the conditions under which this tool should be used once available.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it is static, free, representative, non-live, and never charges a wallet. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 only two sentences, with the key differentiator 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' front-loaded. It packs relevant content details (fields, evidence, source URLs, confidence, missing-data disclosure, checked_at) without unnecessary fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only sample tool, the description fully covers what the agent can expect: the report's contents, the fact that it is not a live lookup, and the absence of charges. An output schema is absent, but the description compensates by enumerating the report components.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming no inputs are needed. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool, and the description's 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' framing reinforces the no-configuration nature.

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 ('inspect') and a clearly defined resource ('a representative complete verification report'), explicitly listing the types of content included. It also distinguishes itself from live lookups, which sets it apart from sibling paid verification tools.

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 phrase 'FREE STATIC SAMPLE' and the explicit statement 'This does not perform a live lookup' clearly imply the tool is for previewing/inspecting a sample report rather than obtaining live verification. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for live lookups.

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

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the call is free and returns machine-readable schema definitions, but it does not describe the response shape or how the included schemas are organized. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence contains the pricing signal, target tools, and output type with no filler. The wording is slightly awkward ('distinct... schemas'), but nothing 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 no-input, read-only metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the free schemas for the two relevant tools. Because there is no output schema, a slightly clearer statement of what is returned (one schema per tool) would fully close the gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 action ('get') and resource ('machine-readable schemas') for preview_company and verify_company, so an agent can tell this is a schema-metadata tool. Some ambiguity remains around 'distinct' and 'evidence result,' and the title mentions only verify_company while the description covers both tools.

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 clear context for use: this is the free way to obtain schemas for the limited preview_company tool and paid verify_company evidence result. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, but for a zero-parameter schema tool the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral clarity by emphasizing this is a dry-run that never signs or submits a payment and does not claim legal wallet ownership. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies a critical distinction for an agent considering payment actions.

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 informative sentence, front-loaded with the key purpose ('FREE AGENT PAYMENT FIREWALL') and a clear before-signing gate. It includes a defensive clarity sentence about not signing/submitting. It is compact and each sentence earns its place, though the all-caps acronym could be seen as stylistic noise.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description captures the essential behavioral promise: free dry-run, decision verdict, and no signing/submission. The complexity of the nested inputs is high, but the schema itself is rich. The description doesn't mention return value shape or result handling, but the output schema likely covers that; a brief mention of ALLOW/REVIEW/DENY actually covers the output concept.

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 0%, so the description could compensate, but it does not explain any parameters individually. It does enumerate the conceptual input categories (Israeli company identity, service origin, signed domain payee manifest, destination wallet, payment fingerprint, buyer mandate) which loosely map to schema properties. However, with 9 parameters and nested object structures, the agent must rely entirely on the schema for 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 clearly states the tool performs a dry-run preview of an x402 payment trust decision, binding multiple inputs into an ALLOW/REVIEW/DENY verdict. It distinguishes itself from signing/submitting via the 'never signs or submits' clause. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the several similarly-named preview 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?

The description conveys when to use this tool: before signing an x402 payment, to get a free firewall/decision. It also states what it does NOT do (never signs or submits), providing an implicit exclusion from signing tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like preview_israeli_invoice_payment_gate_free or when not to use it, but the x402-specific scope is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial transparency beyond that by clearly listing excluded fields (evidence, source URLs, address, incorporation, annual-report, law-violation) and stating that verification depth is not accepted.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The free/limited nature is front-loaded, the return scope is precise, and the pointer to the paid alternative is placed last. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 read-only, idempotent lookup with an output schema and 100% schema-described parameters, the description fully covers purpose, exclusions, and routing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage. It does reinforce that company_name or company_number is needed, but the schema already conveys this.

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 ('preview'), a resource ('Israeli company identity'), and a clear scope ('free and limited'). It explicitly enumerates what is returned and what is never returned, and distinguishes itself from the paid verify_company tool by contrast.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the paid alternative: use preview_company for a free limited identity preview, and use verify_company when a complete evidence-backed public-registry result is needed.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is free, returns reusable arguments for a paid report, and includes no field-level evidence or source URLs. This fully discloses the tool's limitations.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The key message 'RECOMMENDED FREE FIRST STEP' is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential information about scope, output, and limitations.

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 output schema is present and the annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it explains the free nature, the limited evidence scope, and how the results feed into the paid workflow. No critical information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including disambiguation guidance and the company_name/company_number relationship. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema carries the burden fully, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: it resolves legal identity and registry status for an Israeli company without payment. It also explicitly frames itself as the recommended free first step versus the paid full report, distinguishing it from the paid sibling tools.

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 clearly names target use cases: Israel company verification, supplier checks, counterparty due diligence, and KYB evidence. It implies using this before the paid full report and says it returns arguments for that report, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: missing buyer context 'fails safely to HOLD,' and the tool never authorizes payment, resolves the supplier, or contacts the Tax Authority. These are concrete behavioral disclosures that help the agent avoid misusing the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the value proposition, the concrete checks performed, the failure behavior, the non-behaviors, and the alternative tool in four dense sentences. There is no filler or repetition of schema constraints.

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 21-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is not exhaustive: it does not describe the exact return shape or discuss the meaning of several optional fields. However, required fields are clear from the schema, annotations cover the side-effect profile, and the fail-to-HOLD behavior plus the explicit handoff to authorize_israeli_invoice_payment_paid give the agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 19%, so the description carries extra responsibility. It adds high-level meaning by grouping parameters into 'VAT and total arithmetic' and 'date-, amount-, VAT-, and buyer-sensitive' allocation-number checks, and it notes buyer-context behavior. However, it does not explain most optional parameters such as official_verification, contact fields, currency, or language, so the compensation for low schema coverage is only partial.

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 action and scope: it is a free pre-payment gate that 'Checks VAT and total arithmetic plus date-, amount-, VAT-, and buyer-sensitive Israel Invoices allocation-number applicability.' It also separates itself clearly from the final authorization tool, authorize_israeli_invoice_payment_paid, by naming that tool explicitly.

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 clearly positions the tool as the 'FREE FIRST STEP before paying an Israeli tax invoice' and tells the agent when to stop using it: 'Use authorize_israeli_invoice_payment_paid for the registry-backed PAY, HOLD, or BLOCK decision.' It also states exclusions such as not authorizing payment, resolving the supplier, or contacting the Tax Authority.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: it confirms that this preview only verifies resolvability and signal coverage, and deliberately withholds the risk score, mismatch findings, and final decision. This prevents false expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 succinct sentences front-load the free-preview purpose, then state the scope, exclusions, and routing to the paid sibling. There is no filler or redundant detail; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only preview tool with an output schema, high schema coverage, and zero required parameters, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: when to use it, what it returns, what it intentionally does not return, and which sibling covers the full paid decision. Nothing essential is missing.

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 92%, so the input schema already documents the individual parameters well. The description only refers generically to 'invoice and payment-context signals' rather than restating parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and the baseline of 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 specific free preview action for an Israeli vendor payment-risk assessment and clearly states what it confirms (company resolvability) and what it shows (invoice and payment-context signals). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the paid assessment tool by stating what it does not reveal: a risk score, mismatch findings, or a decision.

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 explicitly positions this tool as the pre-payment free option and instructs the agent to use assess_israeli_vendor_payment_risk_paid for the evidence-backed PROCEED, REVIEW, or BLOCK result. This gives an unambiguous when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: paid report processing and x402 payments are temporarily suspended, meaning the agent should not expect paid verification or attempt payment. This is important operational information not available from the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant wording. The suspension warning is front-loaded and the instruction is clear. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices purpose clarity for brevity.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a description that only discusses payment suspension, the definition is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the result, or when to prefer this tool over the many preview and paid sibling tools.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents fields like company_name, company_number, city, and depth sufficiently.

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 never states a verb and resource. It reports that paid reports and x402 payments are suspended, but does not explicitly say that this tool verifies Israeli company information or what it does. The agent must infer the purpose from the tool name and sibling tools, which is vague.

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 gives directional guidance: paid reports are unavailable, free previews remain, and the agent should not sign or send a payment. However, it never names an alternative sibling such as preview_israeli_company_free, nor does it specify when to call verify_company itself versus another tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about the temporary suspension and the instruction not to send payment, which is useful, but it does not clarify what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 text is brief and free of fluff, but it is structured as a status notice rather than a tool description. It is concise yet lacks informative substance.

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?

The description omits the tool's core purpose, expected output, and any indication of what the returned verification report contains. It is a suspension notice, not a complete tool description.

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 covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is met. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only announces that paid reports and x402 payments are suspended and that free previews are available. The tool's function must be inferred entirely from its name.

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 advises not to sign or send payment and mentions free previews, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as preview_israeli_company_free or verify_company. No clear when-to-use guidance is provided.

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