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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world nature, and the description adds the crucial cost signal ("5 points per returned record") plus the scope of data returned. It does not mention what happens when the corporation number is invalid or whether all fields are always populated.

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 action and source before the field enumeration. The long list of returned fields is somewhat dense but each item earns its place given there is no 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, enumerating the returned fields (name, status, incorporation date, address, legislation, directors, control persons, filings, name history) is the key contribution and it is present, along with pricing. Minor gap: no indication of error behavior for unresolvable identifiers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `company` parameter is documented with an example (426160-7). The description restates the accepted forms (number or registry link) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 federal corporation from the Corporations Canada registry") plus the two accepted identifiers, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from the sibling search tool run_ca_companies_search and from run_ca_company_filings.

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 corporation ... by corporation number or registry link" phrasing makes clear this is a single-record lookup, implicitly requiring the identifier first, but it never names run_ca_companies_search as the way to obtain that number, nor any failure conditions.

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