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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the lookup is 'keyless' (no auth needed), uses ProZorro's organization index, and returns an edrpou value for downstream use.

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 with no filler: the first states the tool's core purpose, and the second provides the critical workflow. The most important distinction is front-loaded, and every clause 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 simple 2-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the lookup, the keyless access, the relevant sibling tool, and what to do with the result. No critical information for calling it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the meaning of role by relating it to the next tool's tenderer/buyer parameters, but it does not add substantial new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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: 'Resolve a Ukrainian company or public buyer NAME to its EDRPOU code.' It also distinguishes itself from prozorro_search_tenders by noting that tool filters by EDRPOU while this one resolves names.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'This is the entry point for supplier due diligence.' It also names the alternative (prozorro_search_tenders) and gives the exact call sequence: call this first, then pass the returned edrpou as tenderer or buyer.

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