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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it is a paid call costing $0.05 USDC on Base Mainnet, charged only on successful calls, and the depth parameter currently has no effect on the result. This gives the agent meaningful operational expectations.

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 longer than the minimum, but nearly every sentence carries useful information: purpose, evidence type, exclusions, pricing, and the preview_company alternative. The all-caps price line and quickstart URL add slight stylistic noise, but they remain functional and do not obscure the main message.

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 with no output schema, the description communicates the nature of the result, the registry source, the paid constraint, and the intended use cases. It could be more explicit that at least one of company_name or company_number is required despite zero schema-required parameters, though the schema descriptions strongly imply this.

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 the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal value by naming legal name or company number as the lookup keys and mentioning city disambiguation, but it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter guidance.

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 and resource: paid verification of Israeli companies against the Companies Registry, returning field-level public-registry evidence. It also differentiates itself from preview_company and explicitly says it is 'Not Full Regulatory KYB,' so an agent can distinguish it from related services.

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 directs the agent to use preview_company first when only a free identity/status check is needed, and frames this tool as the paid public-registry evidence option for supplier checks and due diligence. The 'Not Full Regulatory KYB' line adds a clear exclusion, and the pricing makes the cost of invocation transparent.

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