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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses pricing and auth paths (0.02 USDC via x402, 10 credits of a Factline key, first 5 calls/day free) and the possible verdict values including limited_data — important since there is no output schema. It omits what happens on unsupported countries or why a result degrades to limited_data, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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-loaded usage clause followed by a compact country-by-country signal inventory and a single payment sentence; every clause carries information. The country enumeration is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it will get; splitting pricing into its own sentence would improve scanability.

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 no output schema, the description correctly supplies the verdict enum and the signal set per country, plus cost/auth so the agent can decide whether to call it. It could be stronger on partial-data behavior and on how to combine id/name/country, but for a 4-optional-param lookup it is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it ties `country` values to signal depth ('GB, FR, NO and FI have full signals; NL with kvk') and explains that a KvK number unlocks the Dutch insolvency register. No guidance on `id` vs `name` precedence, though the schema examples partially cover that.

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+resource ('check if a European company is healthy') and enumerates exactly which signals are returned per country (UK accounts overdue, French BODACC, Norwegian bankruptcy, etc.). The aggregate verdict taxonomy (healthy/watch/distressed/limited_data) separates it from narrower siblings like company_lookup, company_dossier or nl_insolvency_check, which cover only a slice of this.

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?

'Use ... before you deal with it' gives a clear triggering context, and the country list tells the agent which jurisdictions are worth querying. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not (e.g. use company_lookup for a simple identity lookup instead of paying for signals).

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