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 usefully discloses the billing cost ('10 point per returned record') and that full history is included, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid/unknown IČO.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the identifier up front before listing returned fields and cost. It is dense but every clause carries information; the field enumeration is slightly long but useful given the absence of an output schema.

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 reasonably by listing the returned fields and disclosing per-record cost. It leaves gaps around error behavior and how history is bounded, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 single 'company' parameter with an example value, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the accepted identifier forms but adds no format detail beyond the schema.

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 exact resource (Slovakia Commercial Register / Obchodný register SR), and the lookup keys (IČO or registry URL), then enumerates the returned fields. This clearly separates it from the sibling run_sk_companies_search, which returns multiple companies.

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 phrase 'Get one company ... by IČO or registry URL' implies this is the single-record lookup tool versus the search sibling, but it never states when to prefer this over run_sk_companies_search or what to do when only a name is known. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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