Company details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds that this doubles as a connection check, which is a useful behavioral note, but says nothing about caching, freshness of the VAT period data, or whether it fails when the tenant is unauthenticated.

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 sentences with no filler, and the returned fields are front-loaded ahead of the connectivity note. The opening is an elliptical noun fragment ('The accounting entity of this UOL tenant: ...') rather than a full clause, which is slightly less readable but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter read tool with a published output schema, the description covers purpose, payload contents, and an extra use case, so nothing essential is missing. The only gap is the absence of any hint that the data is tenant-scoped and requires an authenticated connection, which the openWorldHint implies but does not state.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning the description could add; baseline 4 applies for zero-param tools. The description does implicitly confirm no scoping input is needed (tenant is inferred), but that is incidental rather than deliberate parameter documentation.

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 — the tenant's accounting entity — and enumerates what it returns (name, IČO, DIČ, address, VAT filing period), so the agent immediately knows the payload. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_business_snapshot or get_financial_overview, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The second sentence supplies a concrete secondary use case — verifying that uol-mcp connectivity works — which is genuine usage guidance. However, there are no conditions for when to prefer this over get_business_snapshot or get_financial_overview for tenant-level data, and no exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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