Hong Kong Company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the billing model (1 point per company), the free quota (20/day) and the reset time. It omits auth requirements and error behavior for invalid identifiers, but the cost/quota disclosure is genuinely beyond schema scope.

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 purpose before the return preview and cost model. The field list is long but informative; nothing is redundant filler.

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 usefully previews returned fields and adds the cost/quota contract an agent needs before calling. Minor gaps remain about how results map to input identifiers and partial-failure handling.

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 already enumerates accepted identifier forms (CR number, 8-digit BRN, exact name). The description adds only the count range, which the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems, so it earns the baseline 3.

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: batch-query holographic profiles for 1–10 Hong Kong companies, and enumerates what comes back. The 'batch' framing clearly distinguishes it from the single-entity search_companies and the filings-oriented siblings.

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 1–10 company scope and per-company cost imply this is for retrieving full profiles of several known companies at once, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as search_companies or a single-company lookup.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the conditional success behavior (payment completed + document ready -> encrypted download URL), but is silent on what is returned for pending/failed payment states, whether polling is expected, or any auth/rate-limit considerations.

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 zero filler, front-loading the core action and then the payoff (the download URL). Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly explains the key return value (encrypted official document download URL). It is nearly complete for a single-param status check, though it omits non-success response states an agent may need to handle.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents order_sn and its format. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Check') and resource ('payment status of a filing retrieval or credit purchase order') and even names the two order types it covers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_filing_order, though it does not explicitly reference any sibling by name.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is called after an order exists to poll status, but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any preconditions such as a valid order_sn being required. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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 behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is paid, that a Stripe Checkout URL is produced, that completion yields a PDF download, and that +10 bonus query credits are awarded. It omits auth/payment failure behavior, order durability, and whether the credit is granted before or after payment confirmation.

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, zero filler, action and outcome front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs (cost, checkout URL, deliverable, bonus credits).

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 payment/creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input trigger and the resulting user-visible outcome. It could be more complete about required preconditions and failure modes, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 all four parameters (email, barcode, doc_name, company_name) are already documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to get_company_filings for the barcode. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a paid filing retrieval order for an official statutory document') and adds the concrete side effect of generating a Stripe Checkout URL. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_filing_order_status or get_company_filings, so an agent must infer the workflow split, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 only implied: the description conveys that this is the order/payment step, but it never states when to use it versus check_filing_order_status or get_company_filings, nor does it give prerequisites (e.g., that a valid barcode must first come from get_company_filings). That prerequisite exists only in the schema's parameter description.

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 discloses that this is a retrieval (read-only) operation and lists return content, which is helpful given the lack of an output schema, but it omits permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, and error conditions.

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 well-formed sentences with the core retrieval purpose front-loaded and a useful downstream note about barcodes in the second sentence. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and hints at the subsequent ordering workflow. It could go slightly further by mentioning pagination or authentication, but it covers the essential context an agent needs.

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 both parameters (cr_no and company_name) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, formats, or mutual exclusivity beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full catalog of official ICRIS statutory filed documents for a Hong Kong company'), and enumerates the returned artifacts (barcodes, form codes, filing dates, titles), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_filing_order or search_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?

Implies usage context by noting barcodes can be used to order official statutory filings, but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over create_filing_order or get_order_status_and_download, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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 must carry behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that buy_100_credits only *generates a Checkout URL* rather than charging the account directly, and distinguishes free daily quota from permanent paid credits. It omits permission/auth requirements, whether the URL expires or is single-use, pricing beyond the HK$ 100 figure, and any side effects of the top-up.

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 well-formed sentence covering both branches, front-loaded with the more common inspection action before the purchase action. Every clause carries information and there is no filler, though the two-branch structure packed into one sentence is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral and return information. It conveys what balance the check reports and that the buy branch yields a Stripe URL, but it does not describe the shape of the returned balance (free vs paid breakdown, reset timing) or what the caller should do with the URL. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool with zero structured support.

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 enum parameter is fully documented with both values explained in the schema itself. The description largely restates the same two actions, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 two concrete capabilities with specific resources: checking remaining free daily quota and paid credit balance, and generating a HK$ 100 Stripe Checkout URL for 100 permanent credits. The verb+resource pairing is clear and the two modes are distinguishable. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the sibling list (company search/filing tools) is unrelated, so there is little risk of confusion.

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 by the two-branch phrasing: check when you need balance visibility, buy when you want to top up. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether a paid account is required to buy). The default of check_balance is only communicated via the schema, not the description.

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 usefully discloses the cost profile ('Does NOT deduct points') and the existence of a daily rate limit, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination/limits behavior, or error handling for a lookup with no annotations to fall back on.

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 tight sentences with no waste: purpose first, return shape second, cost/rate-limit caveat third. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct information.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (name, CR number, status, detail URL). Combined with the input modes and rate-limit note, this is close to complete; pagination and error semantics are the only notable omissions.

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 schema already documents both `query` (name or CR number, min 2 chars) and `limit` (1-20, default 5). The description restates the query modes without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Search Hong Kong companies') plus the two accepted lookup keys (name keyword or CR number), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like batch_get_company_details or get_company_filings, which it must do by inference.

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 description implies the usage context (lookup by name keyword or CR number), but never states when to prefer this tool over batch_get_company_details or the filing-related siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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