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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the data is 'current' and has 'officially attested provenance', which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like possible errors, response format, or rate limits. A mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences, directly stating the tool's purpose and content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key information, with no wasted words.

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 tool with simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the data fields returned and notes data currency. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the basic scope, though error handling and return structure are not elaborated.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The schema already explains the code pattern and the interpret boolean with its fee implication. Baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 description clearly states the tool provides a 'core registry profile' of a Lithuanian legal entity, enumerating the specific data fields (name, legal form, status, etc.). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like ownership or court cases.

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 implies this is the general-purpose company information tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the specialized siblings. It gives context ('core registry profile') but omits any exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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