Impressum & Legal Notice Scraper: VAT, Registry, Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-annotation context: the per-event cost model (run start $0.003, website identified $0.004, google search page $0.004) and the Apify account billing requirement, which the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first states purpose and return payload, the second states the cost model. No padding or redundancy.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the extracted fields. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (websites, verifyInRegistry) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (reads the legal notice/Impressum of European websites) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it extracts. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_uk_companies or validate_eu_vat_numbers, which search or validate by name rather than resolving a website to a company.

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 implied by the input (you supply websites), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings. The agent must infer that this is the website-to-company path rather than a registry lookup.

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