Compliance + sanctions check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the public route, authentication via MCP client, and geographical limitation. It also lists the exact registries checked, providing useful operational context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences: first states the core purpose, second explains auth behavior, third gives market scope. Everything earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description provides a thorough list of check types, geographical scope, and authentication behavior. Despite lacking an output schema, it gives a strong sense of what the tool returns. Minor gaps include error handling and return format, but for a single-param tool this is quite complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'ico' parameter, which already includes detailed constraints (6-8 digits, pattern, market limitation). The description adds no param-specific details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states it performs a compliance check for a Slovak company and enumerates specific data sources (AML/sanctions, debtor lists, insolvency, RPVS, regulatory flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_companies or get_financials, which serve different purposes.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: SK-only, public route with no server-side API key but routed through authenticated client, and notes CZ/AT are not yet available. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the domain (compliance vs. search/details) makes the when-to-use clear.

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