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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses sourcing (public records only), a privacy boundary ('no personal data'), cost ($0.01 USDC on Base, eip155:8453), the x402 payment parameter location, and the transport (HTTP GET). It omits failure behavior (no-match, upstream errors) and latency, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Densely front-loaded: the payload contents come first, then the privacy note, then the price/payment mechanics and endpoint. Every sentence carries information, though the payment boilerplate is a bit compressed against the substance.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, what is excluded, what it costs, and how to pay. The remaining gap is result shape and not-found behavior, which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 parameter and schema coverage is 100%, including the 'q' alias, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the company string itself (normalization, ambiguity, partial names), making the baseline 3 correct.

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 resource — 'one joined company dossier' — and enumerates its parts (SEC EDGAR identity, CIK, SIC, incorporation state, filings, RDAP domain facts, sanctions screen), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like company_facts__snapshot, composite__brief, or edgar__company, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Nothing says when to pick this over the many overlapping siblings (edgar__company, check_sanctions__screen, domfacts__rdap, composite__brief). The only invocation guidance is mechanical — price and how to pay — not selection guidance or exclusions.

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