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 substantial context: the $0.05 USDC cost per successful call on Base Mainnet, the buyer-authorization requirement, the fact that it returns structured public-registry evidence rather than full KYB, and the depth compatibility behavior. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs in pricing, routing, and prerequisites efficiently. It is slightly noisy, however: it repeats 'paid' and 'full' from the title, uses all-caps for the pricing line, and ends with a bridge URL that is not essential to tool selection.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what evidence it returns, what authorization is required, and what it costs. It is slightly incomplete because it does not sketch the returned evidence fields and leaves the relationship to verify_israeli_company_paid ambiguous, but it is sufficient for invocation.

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 100%: all 7 parameters have meaningful descriptions, enums, defaults, and formatting guidance. The free-text description provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline score 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: resolving Israeli Companies Registry records and checking invoice arithmetic/allocation-number rules, and it identifies itself as the paid full-evidence verification versus the free preview sibling. It loses a point because the opening phrase 'Israeli invoice payment gates and paid company verification' blends two different services, and it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named verify_israeli_company_paid sibling.

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 explicitly says to use preview_israeli_company_free first when only a free identity/status check is needed, and it gives a clear when-not boundary with 'Not Full Regulatory KYB'. It also notes the buyer-authorization prerequisite for Tax Authority access, giving the agent actionable routing and exclusion criteria.

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