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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data fields and, unusually, the cost ('5 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral information an agent needs. It still omits what happens on a miss, identifier validation rules, and any rate/auth constraints.

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, source and lookup key before enumerating fields. The field list is long but each item is informative; only minor trimming is possible.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and states the cost, covering both input and output expectations. Missing only error/miss behavior and any constraint on which identifier forms are accepted.

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 parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description restates the accepted identifier forms but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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), resource (one federal corporation from the Corporations Canada registry), and the accepted identifiers (corporation number or registry link). The word 'one' plus the identifier-based lookup implicitly separates it from run_ca_companies_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 identifier-based input implies a single-record lookup use case, which is reasonable context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over run_ca_companies_search or run_ca_company_filings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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