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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: cost and payment mechanism ($0.01 per call, x402 USDC on Base, no account), a result cap (up to 200), matching semantics (exact full-name match, case- and diacritics-insensitive), and the scope limit that only *current* registrations are returned. Annotations cover safety/idempotency; the description covers everything else.

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-loads pricing and the use case, then scope, then return fields — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It loses a point for repeating the same motivation twice ('related parties... due diligence on a director' followed by 'related parties, director due diligence').

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-only lookup, the description covers cost, scope, matching behavior, result cap, and the returned fields, while an output schema exists to carry the return-value detail. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the min-3-char and URL-encoding requirements, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new meaning on top: the match is exact against the full registered name and is case- and diacritics-insensitive.

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 precise verb+resource: Romanian companies where a specific person is currently registered as administrator or legal representative in ONRC, with a stated cap of 200. This person-keyed reverse lookup is clearly distinguishable from all company-keyed siblings (company_profile, company_financials, company_search).

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 when-to-use framing: 'Use when you need a person's other Romanian business affiliations: related parties, conflicts of interest or due diligence on a director.' It names the triggering scenarios but does not name an alternative tool or state any exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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