Company registry lookup (GLEIF / UK / US)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description, which notes the tool is paid and discloses the cost and payment method, must carry the full burden. However, it does not mention rate limits, response format, error behavior, or data quality. Since it's a read-only lookup, the lack of destructive side effects reduces the need, but important operational details are missing.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose and use case, plus a clear pricing note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool is moderately complex (3 params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, usage, and cost. However, without an output schema, the description should have given at least a hint about return data (e.g., registration number, status, jurisdiction) to make it complete. It's adequate but has a clear gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the 'type' parameter values (GLEIF, UK, US), which complements the schema's terse descriptions. It doesn't add significant semantic depth for 'query' or 'country', but the schema already covers them.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a real company in official registries by name or id' and explicitly names the registries (GLEIF, UK Companies House, US state registries). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are focused on crypto, DeFi, wallet, and chain data, making the purpose 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 description provides clear usage context: 'Use to verify a counterparty actually exists as a registered legal entity before doing business.' It effectively tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it doesn't explicitly exclude situations or mention alternatives. The context is sufficient given the unique purpose among siblings.

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