resolve_caenLook up a Romanian CAEN (NACE) activity code and return its official label plus hierarchy (section, division, parent). Labels are in Romanian.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral context: the tool returns the official label and hierarchy. There is no contradiction. With annotations present, the description adds value beyond them.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, the second adds detail about language. Each sentence 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?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers input (the code to look up) and output (official label and hierarchy), along with the language context. No missing essential information.
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%, but the description explains that the 'code' parameter is a Romanian CAEN (NACE) activity code, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints. It also describes the output.
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 the verb 'Look up', resource 'Romanian CAEN (NACE) activity code', and output 'official label plus hierarchy (section, division, parent)'. It also notes that labels are in Romanian. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on company data.
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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to look up a CAEN code) but does not provide explicit when-not or alternative guidance. The sibling tools context shows different purposes, so usage is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect: financial history, profile, status, CAEN code lookup, and search. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, e.g., get_company_financials, search_companies.
5 tools are well-scoped for a company data server, covering core operations without excess.
Covers key company data aspects: profile, financials, status, CAEN lookup, and search. Minor gap: no tool for contact details or historical status changes, but core is present.