Acquire EU

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description has to carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read-like retrieval and hints at what will come back, but it doesn't disclose potential auth behavior, handling of unknown IDs, data recency, or any restrictions beyond that.

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 with a compact list of content categories, no filler, and no repetition of schema information. The primary verb and resource appear on first read.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the key output semantics via the listed content types, which is largely sufficient. It does not address edge cases like missing or invalid company IDs, but the overall call guidance is adequate for normal invocation.

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 'id' and 'api_key' are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter guidance, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('company details') with an explicit ID constraint, and lists the concrete report contents (case file, legal registry, contacts, public contract history). This makes its purpose obvious and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and coverage tools.

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?

Use is implied: call this when you have a company ID and want comprehensive details for that specific company. However, it never explicitly mentions the sibling tools as alternatives for finding IDs first, and gives no 'when not to use' guidance.

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 does disclose that metrics are 'real-time', which is meaningful behavioral context. However it says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or whether counts reflect a partial/cached view, which is a gap for an un-annotated tool.

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 resource, the freshness, and the scope. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 truth about the response, yet it only gestures at return contents (metrics, scrapers, counts) without describing shape or units. Adequate for a zero-parameter stats call, but not fully complete.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering or scoping arguments are accepted, which matches the empty 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get ... coverage metrics') with the scope made concrete: 22 European jurisdictions, active scrapers, record counts. It is clearly a metrics tool rather than a record-retrieval tool, which distinguishes it from the search_*/get_* siblings without naming them.

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 sibling retrieval tools, and no prerequisites or typical scenario (e.g. checking data freshness before a search). The agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/freshness endpoint.

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 burden. It usefully discloses that fields are registry-sourced and that missing fields are null, which sets expectations for return completeness. It does not cover auth/permission behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only retrieval tool the main behavioral trait (nullable fields) is covered.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of returned fields and a note on null handling. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the fields returned and the null behavior, which is the key missing piece for an agent. It lacks pagination or error handling details, but for a simple retrieval-by-ID tool it is nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' (with example prefixes) and 'api_key'. The description adds context by indicating the ID is a unique succession target identifier, but contributes little beyond the schema, so baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'registry-sourced profile of a succession target by ID'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling search_succession_targets by being the detail-fetch by ID, and it enumerates the exact fields returned (owner age band, filed revenue/net margin/equity, national registry link).

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 tool is the detail endpoint for an ID, which a reader can contrast with search_succession_targets, but it does not explicitly say 'use this after search_succession_targets to get full profile' or state when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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 disclosure burden. It only states what is searched, not pagination behavior, auth expectations, data source characteristics, or response format. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, its brevity leaves out behavioral and selection context that would make it more useful.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not fully self-contained. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over search_insolvencies and does not describe what the returned results look like or how the API behaves.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The asset categories in the description loosely map to asset_type values, but all parameter semantics are already 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: searching European court-ordered liquidation auctions, commercial real estate foreclosures, industrial machinery, and insolvency asset sales. This gives a specific scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_insolvencies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_insolvencies is not mentioned, and no exclusions or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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 data freshness ('live') and the breadth of coverage (22 jurisdictions), but says nothing about pagination, result caps beyond the schema's limit, rate limits, or that an API key is required for access.

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; it leads with the action and resource and closes with the scope metrics. Every clause carries 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?

For an 8-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description establishes the domain adequately but omits usage routing, pagination behavior, and auth notes. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer invocation strategy.

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 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how 'stage' or 'has_contracts' interact), 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 ('search and filter') and a concrete resource ('European insolvency, liquidation, and bankruptcy filings'), plus scale (105,000+) and coverage (22 jurisdictions). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_distressed_auctions and search_succession_targets by resource domain, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It neither says when to prefer this over get_company_details nor when to reach for search_distressed_auctions instead. The only usage signal is the resource scope itself.

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 disclosure burden. It does add real value by disclosing data provenance (registry-sourced, revenue/margin from filed accounts) and the null-handling behavior for unpublished fields. However, it says nothing about authentication needs (an api_key parameter exists), rate limits, or result ordering/pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the clause about nulls for unpublished fields is placed at the end where it belongs. It is information-rich without padding, though the parenthetical criteria list is heavy.

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 8 optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to do a lot of work. It covers the data domain and null semantics well, but omits any indication of the returned record shape and does not mention the optional api_key/auth requirement, leaving gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 all 8 parameters including defaults and examples, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the core filters (age 60+, margin source, under-45 board flag) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case 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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and a precisely scoped resource: registry-sourced European off-market succession targets, limited to UK, France and Norway. It even enumerates the target criteria (owners 60+, margin from filed accounts, no junior director flag), so the agent knows exactly what universe it queries. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_insolvencies or get_succession_target_details, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when this is the wrong tool, and no reference to an alternative such as get_succession_target_details for full records. Domain scoping implies the usage context, but nothing in the text actually instructs the agent about selection.

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