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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a critical non-obvious behavior: a 50 USDC pay-per-use fee on Base via x402. It also notes reliance on public sources, but omits auth requirements, read-only status, return format, and failure behavior.

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 a single compact line that front-loads the tool's purpose and packs usage and pricing into short tags. The 'ENTERPRISE:' prefix is minor noise, but otherwise every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, it covers the core return concept, the input type, and the significant pay-per-use cost. Still, with no output schema, it leaves the input format, report contents, and payment/auth flow implicit, creating some uncertainty for an agent.

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 schema only documents the parameter as 'service input', which carries no real meaning. The description adds 'input=company', giving the parameter some semantics, but it remains vague about whether a company name, ticker, URL, or jurisdiction is expected.

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 identifies the deliverable: a company due-diligence dossier with red flags from public sources. It is semantically distinct from generic research or report tools, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 gives usable context: input is a company and the call is pay-per-use. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over overlapping siblings like risk-analysis, compliance-audit, or competitive-analysis, and it provides no explicit exclusions.

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