Compliance + sanctions check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It proactively discloses that this is a public route with no server-side API key needed but still goes through the authenticated MCP client for traceability—a useful behavioral nuance. It doesn't mention response format or potential side effects, but the read-only nature of a 'check' is implicit.

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?

The description is compact: one sentence listing checks, one sentence about authentication, and one sentence about geographic roadmap. Every sentence provides distinct information with no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and authentication model, which is sufficient for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema. It doesn't describe return values, but the list of checks implies the kind of data returned. Slight gap is no mention of rate limits or error behavior.

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 single parameter 'ico' is fully described in the schema (pattern, length). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Public compliance check for a Slovak company' and enumerates the exact data sources (AML/sanctions, debtor lists, insolvency status, RPVS, regulatory flags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_companies or get_financials.

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 states clear context for when to use (compliance checking for Slovak companies) and even an exclusion ('SK-only today'), which helps an agent avoid using it for CZ/AT companies. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those jurisdictions, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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