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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by saying the tool uses the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials and that charges and authorization are gateway-determined. However, it does not clarify whether both identifiers can be supplied, which one takes precedence when both are present, or what happens if neither is provided.

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 compact and front-loads the resource and returned-data scope before the gateway billing/auth note. The long field list in the first sentence is justified by the absence of an output schema, though the sentence could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

The description is reasonably complete about what data comes back and mentions gateway credential/billing behavior. It remains incomplete for tool selection because it does not differentiate this endpoint from overlapping sibling enterprise tools or fully resolve the one-of identifier semantics.

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%, so the input schema already explains both parameters. The description adds that the identifiers are alternatives for retrieval, but it does not add format details or explicitly state that one of the two should be supplied even though neither is schema-required.

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 states a specific retrieval action and enterprise resource, and enumerates the returned data categories such as shareholders, key personnel, and branches. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling enterprise lookup or summary tools such as company_info, company_detail, or enterpriseaggregationsummary.

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?

It explains that the caller may use an enterprise ID or unified social credit code, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling enterprise endpoints. There are no exclusions, prerequisites for selecting this endpoint, or alternative-tool routing.

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