agentready.ch: Swiss company directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return payload ("fit scores and next best actions"), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, result ranking, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It could still afford one clause of routing guidance without bloat.

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 six parameters, 17% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. Two undocumented parameters (limit, category) and unspecified return structure leave the agent guessing on a non-trivial tool.

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 only 17% (only desired_action is documented), so the description must compensate but does not. It names location, language, user_need and desired_action but adds no meaning, format, or constraints, and limit and category are never mentioned at all.

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 ("Find companies") plus the qualifying dimensions (user need, location, language, desired action). The "natural-language user need" framing hints at intent-based retrieval versus keyword search, but it never names search_companies or search_company_directory to make the distinction explicit.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned despite four search-flavored siblings (search_companies, search_company_directory, agent_intent_search). The agent must infer from the name that intent-driven queries belong here.

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

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. "Email-backed" hints that a real message is sent to the company, but it never states that this is an irreversible outbound action, that user consent is mandatory, that dry_run/preview_only allow safe validation, or what happens on failure. For a side-effecting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the example function names serving as concrete anchors. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin for a 13-parameter mutating tool.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 6 required, 15% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to let an agent invoke this safely and correctly. It conveys the conceptual model but omits the consent requirement, the outbound-email side effect, the validation-only escape hatch, and most parameter meanings.

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 only 15% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It illustrates possible function_name values, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about slug, message, budget, urgency, service_area, sender fields, or the required consent=true flag. The two semantically load-bearing options (dry_run/preview_only) are only documented in 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 ("Execute") and resource ("company function"), plus a concrete list of example function names (request_rate, request_quote, ask_question) that pins down the domain. It also orients the agent by naming the sibling that produces the input (search_company_directory). It misses differentiation from the similarly named sibling prepare_contact_request, which also relates to contacting a company.

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 "returned by search_company_directory" implies a workflow prerequisite (search first, then call), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention that a prior search result is mandatory, and no mention of the required consent flag before dispatching a real email. The agent must infer the sequencing and the consent gate.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the one-line summary: no mention of whether the output is static reference content, whether it triggers any action, or what form the 'showing' takes. Given a zero-parameter meta tool, at minimum the description should signal that it returns descriptive/reference material.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the tool's intent immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the vagueness noted elsewhere.

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?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it explains the domain (discovery and contact through agentready.ch) but not what the agent receives or how to act on it. It is adequate as a pointer but thin for the sole documentation of the tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 gestures at an informational/meta tool that explains how agents can discover companies and make contact via agentready.ch, but it never says what the tool actually returns (a static capability listing? documentation text?). The name 'list_directory_capabilities' promises an enumeration, and the description doesn't confirm or enrich that, leaving purpose only implied rather than stated with a clear verb+resource.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling discovery tools (search_companies, search_company_directory, agent_intent_search). An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a prerequisite orientation call or an alternative to the search tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that sending is immediate via Resend when a recipient email exists, but the else-branch is left undefined (what happens if no recipient email is configured?) and it says nothing about irreversibility, consent handling, permissions, or rate limits for what is clearly a write/send operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and service, with zero filler. The only issue is that brevity here comes at the cost of coverage rather than being earned conciseness.

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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 15% schema coverage, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent lacks enough context on prerequisite consent, dry_run/preview behavior, the no-recipient fallback, and the undocumented request fields to invoke this safely.

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 only 15% (just dry_run and preview_only), leaving 11 parameters undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Ambiguous fields like slug, intent, urgency, budget, service_area, and the const-true consent flag get no clarification of expected format or allowed values.

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 (send) and resource (contact request) plus the destination service, which is more than a tautology. However, the tool name says 'prepare_contact_request' while the description describes an immediate send, and the description does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like call_company_function or request_listing. The name/description tension leaves the agent guessing whether this stages or transmits.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., consent must be collected first), and no mention of the preview/dry-run path as an alternative invocation mode. The only conditional mentioned is an internal branch, not a tool-selection rule.

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

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. 'Read' implies a safe read operation, but the description says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, persistence, or what 'structured agent profile' actually contains, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for a data-retrieval call.

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 with no filler; the verb and the scope arrive immediately. It is efficient, but its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure economy.

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, no annotations, and an undescribed parameter, the description should compensate more than it does. It omits what the returned profile contains, what happens for an unknown slug, and whether authentication is required, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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?

One required string param ('slug') at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning on its own. The description does clarify that the slug identifies a single company ('one company slug'), which is a real contribution, but it never specifies slug format (e.g., 'acme' vs 'acme.com'), so the gap is only partly closed.

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 ('Read') and resource ('structured agent profile for one company slug'), scoped to a single company. It is distinguishable from search_companies and search_company_directory by the singular slug scope, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'one company slug' weakly implies this is the single-record counterpart to the search siblings, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-step email/pay-link flow, that nothing is charged automatically, and that the profile stays private until payment. It also implies the consent requirement, all behavior beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by workflow and privacy/charge clarifications. Dense but every sentence earns its place; minimal waste.

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?

Covers the write action, required inputs, the email/pay-link mechanism, privacy posture, and no-auto-charge behavior. Lacks an output schema, but the description adequately implies the response is a pending/pay-link-issued state without needing to enumerate return fields.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the required-fields precondition but adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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+resource ('Submit a business to be listed') and uniquely identifies the target site. Clearly distinct from siblings like search_companies or read_company_profile, which are read operations on an existing directory.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Collect all required fields from the user first') and describes the activation flow. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 5.

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

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 hints that only 'public' profiles are searched, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, result ordering, or what an empty match returns for a search endpoint.

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 with zero filler; the verb, scope and searchable dimensions are all delivered immediately without repetition.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the query semantics but leaves result shape, limit behavior and sibling differentiation unaddressed. An agent can call it, but with avoidable ambiguity about which search tool to use.

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 0%, so the schema gives no help beyond names and types. The description partially compensates by clarifying what the required 'query' string matches against (name, category, region, service), but the 'limit' parameter with its default of 5 is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (public agentready.ch company profiles) and enumerates the searchable facets: name, category, region, service. It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling search_company_directory, leaving the agent to guess which search endpoint to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named sibling search_company_directory or read_company_profile. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the one-line summary.

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

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 does disclose the return payload (slugs, profile links, agent files, functions, contact endpoints), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it omits pagination/limit behavior, result ranking, and any auth or rate-limit expectations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the search facets front-loaded ahead of the return description. 'Structured discovery for agents' is slightly throwaway framing, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

A five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to work harder. Listing return fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the description never covers result count/pagination or explains how the free-text query interacts with the structured facet filters.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, region, category, and function_name with examples. The description's enumeration of the same facets ('company name, service, category, region and available function') adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema provides, and the limit parameter is unaddressed.

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 clear verb (search) and resource (company directory) and enumerates the searchable facets, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very close sibling search_companies, leaving the agent unable to tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 opening phrase 'Structured discovery for agents' gestures at context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (search_companies, agent_intent_search). The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the sibling names.

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