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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses the live registry queried, that both active and ended cases are covered, the fields returned (court, case number, dates, administrator, claims deadline), the entity-type restriction, and the exact cost/payment mechanics including x402 pricing, credit cost, and five free daily calls.

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 with the use case, then inputs, then pricing; a single dense block with no filler sentences. It is somewhat long and the pricing clause is heavy, but every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Combined with payment details, entity restrictions, and input options, an agent has everything needed to decide and invoke.

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 two parameters are already documented, but the description adds that KvK or name are alternatives ('Input: KvK number or company name') and that neither is required, clarifying an ambiguity the schema (required: 0) leaves open.

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 ('know if a Dutch company is bankrupt or in suspension of payments') and names the authoritative source (Centraal Insolventieregister, Rechtspraak). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like company_health, company_lookup, or eu_company_check.

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?

Explicit trigger context ('Use when you need to know if...') plus an exclusion ('Legal entities only') and accepted inputs. It does not point to any alternative tool when the entity is not Dutch or not a legal entity, so routing against the many sibling check tools is left to inference.

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