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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the specific data fields, especially the discovery-URLs, which are not inferable just from the tool name. It provides useful context about what the agent will receive.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the company context and discovery-URL list, then immediately gives the usage instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what to expect (company fields and discovery URLs) and when to call it (first for manufacturer info). No crucial behavioral or usage gap remains.

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 tool has zero parameters (input schema is empty) and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 defines what the tool returns: company context including name, brand, city, address, contacts, websites, and all discovery-URLs (llms.txt, llms-full, server-card, OpenAPI). It also positions the tool as the first call for manufacturer info, making its purpose and scope unambiguous even without an explicit verb.

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 explicitly states 'Вызывай первым для справки о производителе' (Call first for manufacturer info), giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not mention when to avoid it or name alternative tools, but among the siblings none directly overlaps with this company-info function.

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