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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds the result contract instead: proceeding stage with date, case number, court, match quality, and the `ambiguous` flag. That is real context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It doesn't state behavior on zero hits or how limit interacts with multiple matches.

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 core question, then structured result and stage semantics. The stage enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema. Minor redundancy between the register-number format in the description and in the schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and defines every stage label the agent will encounter. The gaps are edge behavior: no-criteria invocation (0 required params), empty results, and how `limit` truncates ambiguous match lists.

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 75%, so the baseline is already high. The description adds value by presenting the three filters as combinable ("and/or") and by reiterating the "HRB 12345" register format, but `limit` is never explained and there is no guidance on which combination gives the most reliable match.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: check whether a German company has insolvency proceedings. That is clearly separable from the siblings (stats, notices, customer checks). It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, so it doesn't reach a 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?

The description states the search criteria ("by name, register number and/or town") and advises that town "narrows ambiguous names", which implies usage. It never says when to use this over company_notices or insolvency_stats, or what to do when no criteria are supplied despite all params being optional.

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