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.