Company profile

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description layers on what they cannot: a per-IP anonymous quota, the fact that an explicit error is returned when exhausted, that search remains functional, and that dates are Persian (1404/06/26). That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core identity sentence, then organized into Basics, cross-references, and quota warnings. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'Basics:' inventory is slightly list-like but useful for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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 complex multi-section tool with no output schema, the description conveys section contents, id cross-references, date format, and access limits. It does not state what happens when sections is null versus empty, nor how max_rows affects which rows are chosen, which are the remaining gaps.

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%, with sections and max_rows already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning by tying board rows to person_id/ad_id and framing 'ads' as gazette notices, but it does not explain the section mapping or the max_rows truncation trade-off beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Registry profile of one Iranian company') and then enumerates exactly what the profile contains: basics, board/CEO, shareholders, licenses, capital history, ads. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming rs_person and rs_ad as downstream lookups for the ids returned here.

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 real operational context: anonymous visitors are limited to a few profiles per IP every few days, a clear error signals the limit, and search still works at that point. The 'get company_id from rs_search_companies' routing lives in the schema rather than the description, so the when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance is present but split across fields.

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