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.