Newly incorporated companies (7-day delayed sample)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds material context beyond the annotations: the 7-day publication latency, the deliberately narrow field set, and the paid-tier boundary for same-day data. It does not mention rate limits or sample sizing beyond the schema's limit cap.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the freshness caveat and the paid-feed boundary. Every sentence carries information, though the 'most recent day QorpIQ publishes openly, which is one week behind the registry' phrasing is slightly roundabout.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (names, identifiers, state, sector) and discloses the freshness constraint that determines whether the result is fit for purpose. For a simple two-parameter, zero-required read tool with full annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 (limit, state) are already documented with defaults, ranges and an example. The description only notes that the state filter is optional and adds no new syntax, format, or semantic detail, 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?

Names a specific resource (companies and LLPs incorporated in India), a precise scope (single most recent published day), and the returned fields (names, identifiers, state, sector). The 7-day delay clause pins down exactly what 'recent' means, distinguishing it from registry-fresh siblings like search_companies or mca_status.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right tool: free, openly published, sample-level data, with an optional state filter. It also signals the boundary case ('Same-day data is a paid feed'), implicitly routing users to list_paid_checks, but it does not name that sibling or state an explicit when-not condition.

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