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

With no annotations, the description does some of the disclosure work: pagination behavior (30 records per page by default), gateway credential usage, and that charges/authorization are gateway-determined. It leaves gaps on what happens if neither identifier is supplied and does not hint at the returned record shape, which a billing-sensitive lookup tool should cover.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and lookup keys, then pagination, then gateway/billing context. No filler; the only minor weakness is the slightly vague 'Charges and authorization are determined by the gateway.'

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 simple 3-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, keys, pagination and billing/auth context. It omits the crucial constraint that at least one identifier must be provided and gives no indication of what a filing record contains.

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 baseline applies. The description confirms that either 'id' or 'tyshxydm' is a valid lookup key and adds the page-size default of 30, which the schema does not state — a small but real addition beyond the field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve website filing records for an enterprise,' which is distinct from siblings like enterprisebaseinfo or enterprisepatent. It does not explicitly connect 'website filing' to ICP or name a sibling, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify it.

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 implies usage when you hold an enterprise ID or unified social credit code, but never states which identifier is preferred, whether at least one is required, or when to pick this over other enterprise-related siblings. The usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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