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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real context: credential source (caller's OpenAny gateway credentials) and that charges/authorization are gateway-determined. It does not state that this is a non-mutating lookup, what happens if the company is unknown, or the shape/limits of the response.

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?

Two short sentences with the returned-field list front-loaded, followed by one sentence on credentials and billing. Minor waste exists: the first sentence duplicates the schema's body description verbatim, so it does double duty rather than adding new information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the explicit field enumeration effectively substitutes for a return description, and the credential/charge note covers the operational side. Remaining gaps (exact-match behavior, not-found handling) are small for this complexity level.

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 nested parameter already documents that searchKey accepts a full registered name or Unified Social Credit Code. The description adds no syntax, matching-rule, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('invoicing details') and enumerates the fields returned (tax number, registered address, phone, bank name, account number), so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent QCC tools such as get_contact_info or get_taxpayer_qualification, which overlap on address/phone and tax attributes.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this when invoicing/bank settlement data for a company is needed. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling contact-info or registration-info tools, and no prerequisites beyond the credential note. The minimum-viable threshold is met but the agent must infer routing.

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