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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the billing cost ('10 point per returned record') and the shape of the returned payload, but says nothing about not-found behavior, whether the lookup is a pure read, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource before enumerating fields and pricing. The field list is long but each item is informative rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (name, status, start date, address, legal form, activities, directors, contact details, establishment units) is genuinely necessary and it is present, as is cost. Missing only edge-case behavior such as invalid or unknown enterprise numbers.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'company' parameter already documents its accepted formats with an example. The description restates the accepted input types but adds no new syntax or normalization guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one company'), the resource, the registry (KBO/BCE), the lookup key (enterprise number or registry URL), and enumerates the returned data fields. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling run_be_companies_search, but that alternative is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you already have an enterprise number or registry URL and want a single company record. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. when you only have a company name and should use run_be_companies_search), and no prerequisite or failure guidance.

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