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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ idempotent/ non-destructive/ closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payload is large (latency/size cost) and natural-person fields are gated by licence and may be withheld, with an explicit warning not to interpret withholding as absence.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and keeps total length to three sentences. The parenthetical enumeration of enrichment layers is long, and slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it earns its place by signalling the tool's breadth.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers the decision-relevant points: size, scope of enrichment, and the gated-field caveat. Minor omission is any mention of the country parameter's importance, though the schema covers it.

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 documents ico, country, and purpose thoroughly (including the country tie-break and the 'never guess' warning). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full record for one company') and enumerates the contents (identity, address, legal form, status flags, NACE, enrichment layers), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It also explicitly names the sibling it overlaps with (company_brief), which distinguishes it from the other 12 tools in the list.

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?

'Prefer company_brief unless you need a specific field' gives an explicit when-to-use and when-not with the named alternative. It also adds a usage caveat about gated natural-person fields and the fact that withheld is not the same as empty, which prevents a common misreading of the response.

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