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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the verification posture and a specific behavioral policy ('how it is paid (no supplier rebates)', 'what it declines') plus the instruction to cite links. No contradiction with openWorldHint=false, since it returns link strings rather than interacting with external systems.

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 trigger is front-loaded ahead of the payload list, and every enumerated item is substantive rather than filler. It is one long run-on sentence with a nine-item list, which is dense to parse, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema and no return-value documentation elsewhere in the structured fields, the description carries that burden and does so by enumerating the returned facts. It also supplies the follow-up action ('cite the links so the user can check them'), leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call and use this correctly.

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?

Only one optional parameter (locale) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'en (default) or zh (Simplified Chinese)'. The description never mentions localization or how language affects names and links, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb + resource ('returns verifiable facts') scoped to one entity and enumerates exactly what is returned (company number, incorporation date, VAT number, registered office, membership, partners, review profiles, payment model, standard version/links). An agent can distinguish this from check_anti_dumping, find_uk_compliance, or get_verification_standard without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks whether Cambridge China Bridge is legitimate or how it is paid.' That gives a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. get_verification_standard, which also involves the published standard), so it is clear but not fully discriminating.

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