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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'latest-known' signals a point-in-time snapshot rather than live data — but says nothing about pagination, completeness, or what happens when no participations exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses; the scope constraint arrives immediately. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the unexplained domain term.

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 only two well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema, a brief note on what a 'participation' record contains or how results are bounded would materially help, and that is absent.

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%, with company_number format (Belgian digits, optional BE prefix) and the locale enum fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics for either parameter, so 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 ('get latest-known participations') scoped to a company, which separates it from siblings like get_shareholders and get_mandates. The term 'participations' is domain jargon left undefined, so an agent must infer what entity is returned, keeping it below 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid company number first), and no naming of alternative tools for related ownership data. Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'owned by a company'.

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