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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait — the cost ('15 point per returned record') — and enumerates the returned data set, though it says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 action and scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, and the trailing field list, while long, substitutes for a missing output schema rather than padding. It is a single dense sentence, but every element carries information.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, beneficial owners, court case files, etc.) and the cost, which is enough for correct invocation. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance versus the search and filings siblings.

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 schema already documents the sole 'company' parameter with format ('UIC (ЕИК) or registry URL. e.g. 831902088'). The description restates 'by UIC (ЕИК) or registry link' without adding format or validation detail, so the 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 and resource ('Get one company from the Bulgaria registry (Commercial Register)') and pins the scope to a single record, which cleanly separates it from run_bg_companies_search. An agent can tell what it fetches without opening the schema.

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 'one company' framing and the input format (UIC or registry link) imply you call this when you already hold a specific company identifier, but the description never names run_bg_companies_search or run_bg_company_filings as alternatives or states when to prefer them. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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