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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that metrics are "real-time" and enumerates the three categories of data returned, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It says nothing about cost, caching, auth, or the shape/format of the response.

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 no filler, front-loading the resource and then the specific data categories. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 a zero-parameter, no-annotation read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials by naming what the response contains. It would be stronger if it said whether the stats are global or scoped and roughly what a caller should do with them.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs.

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") and three concrete resources: coverage metrics, active scrapers, and record counts by country. This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings (company/succession detail getters and search tools), though it never names an alternative 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?

Guidance is implied only: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/pre-flight tool to check data availability before running searches. There is no explicit statement of when to call it, when not to, or what to use instead.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds only the provenance hint 'from official registries'; it says nothing about result caps beyond the schema's limit, pagination, whether registry coverage is uniform across countries, or how the optional api_key interacts with header-based auth.

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, and the scope qualifier ('European') lands early. It is efficient but arguably trimmed past the point of usefulness for an eight-parameter 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?

Eight optional parameters, no annotations and no output schema leave the description responsible for explaining return shape and result limits, which it does not. An agent cannot tell from the description what a result contains or whether pagination is supported.

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 every parameter including enum-like values, ISO country codes, date format and comma-separation is already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond it, which meets the baseline-3 expectation for fully documented schemas.

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 pair (search and filter) plus a precise resource (European insolvency, liquidation and bankruptcy filings from official registries). The domain is clear enough to separate it from siblings like search_distressed_auctions and search_succession_targets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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 use this versus the sibling search tools, no mention that all eight parameters are optional, and no note about how to broaden a query when results are thin. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'search'.

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 and does useful work: it discloses that results are registry-sourced, off-market, and that unpublished registry fields are returned as null. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or result pagination, but 'Search' and the null-handling note provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The long first sentence is dense but every clause contributes domain criteria; the second sentence adds a useful null-field note without 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?

For an eight-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies important domain framing and null-value behavior. It stops short of explaining result shape or how filters combine, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 eight parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of the domain filters (age, margin, succession gap, countries) but does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: search registry-sourced European off-market succession targets. It adds concrete qualifying criteria (owners aged 60+, revenue/margin from filed accounts, no-manager-under-45 flag) and country scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as get_succession_target_details.

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 usage context is implied by the domain language: this is for finding succession targets across specified countries. However, it does not state when to use this versus get_succession_target_details or other search tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like API key handling beyond what the schema already says.

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