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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, disclosing the pricing/payment model ($0.02 per call, x402 USDC on Base, no account) and the shape of the risk output. It stops short of stating rate limits or error behavior, but that is a minor omission against strong annotations.

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 cost and usage triggers, then the CUI prerequisite, then the output contents — a sensible priority order. The final risk-enumeration sentence is dense and long, but every clause names a genuinely distinct risk category rather than padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: cost, when to call it, the prerequisite tool, and a preview of the returned risk dimensions. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the single required parameter 'cui' is fully documented in the schema, including the RO-prefix format example. The description adds only the acquisition hint (get it via romania_company_search), so the baseline 3 applies — the schema is doing the semantic work.

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 ('KYB ... for a Romanian company by CUI') and enumerates exactly what is checked: ONRC insolvency, ANAF status, balance-sheet red flags, Altman Z'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like romania_company_financials or romania_company_profile, which do not produce a composite 0-100 risk score with reasons.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('onboarding a supplier/customer, extending credit or before paying an invoice') and a prerequisite workflow ('Get the CUI with romania_company_search'). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over romania_company_full_report, which likely overlaps on risk content.

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