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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that—no note on data freshness, coverage limits, billing, or what 'advanced' tier data includes.

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?

Two sentences plus an Args block, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter explanations. The Args list duplicates schema structure but is justified given 0% schema description coverage.

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 read-only, two-parameter lookup the usage surface is small, but with no output schema the description leaves the return contents entirely undefined ('advanced company information' could be any field set), and the tier relationship to sibling tools is unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it clarifies that vatCode also accepts a company registration number and that country_code is a two-letter format. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema types, though no example values or validation hints are provided.

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 clear verb and resource (returns advanced company information) and scopes it as 'worldwide', but 'advanced' is an opaque tier label and the description never distinguishes this from the many sibling lookups (get_company_WW_start, get_company_WW_top, get_company_EU_advanced). An agent cannot tell from the text alone which tier variant it needs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not explain when to pick WW_advanced over WW_start, WW_top, or the IT/EU advanced variants, nor does it state any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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