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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('15 point per returned record') and the underlying source (Registo Comercial publications portal), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown identifier.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and returned fields, followed by a brief cost note. Every clause earns its place, though the long parenthetical field list slightly reduces readability.

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, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (name, legal form, registered seat breakdown, publication count, newest publication). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and stated cost, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though sibling routing and error handling remain unaddressed.

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%, so the single 'company' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that it accepts NIF/NIPC or a registry link but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get one company') and resource (Portugal registry / Registo Comercial), and enumerates the exact fields returned. The phrase 'one company' implicitly but clearly contrasts with the run_pt_companies_search sibling that returns multiple matches.

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: it takes a NIF/NIPC or registry link, so it is a direct single-record lookup. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus run_pt_companies_search (to find a company by name) or run_pt_company_filings (for documents), leaving routing to inference.

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