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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral facts beyond this: the $0.05 USDC cost on Base Mainnet, the paid nature of the operation, the report contents, and the KYB limitation. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 with the key recommendation and core purpose. The cost, report contents, KYB disclaimer, and buyer bridge are all useful, though the long URL adds mild noise. 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 paid read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the core result shape (evidence report fields) and cost model. It does not fully explain edge cases, payment mechanics beyond the bridge link, or failure behavior, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining operational details well.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that company_number or company_name is the core input, but it does not add meaningful semantic details about city, website, language, expected_entity_type, or depth beyond what each parameter's schema description already states.

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-resource pair ('Verifies an Israeli company number or legal name') and clearly states the deliverable: a complete field-level Israeli Companies Registry evidence report with source URLs, confidence, missing-data disclosure, and checked_at. It also distinguishes this paid tool from preview_israeli_company_free, making its role among siblings clear.

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 as the recommended paid next step after preview_israeli_company_free and adds a clear exclusion ('Not Full Regulatory KYB'). It could more directly name alternative paid siblings like assess_israeli_vendor_payment_risk_paid, but the free-vs-paid progression and KYB limitation provide solid usage context.

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