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 already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that labels are in Romanian and the return includes hierarchy (section, division, parent), which is useful context. No contradiction.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and output. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple lookup tool with annotations and a one-parameter schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return structure. It lacks details on error handling and code format edge cases, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'code' parameter format beyond implying it is a CAEN code. The schema provides type and length, but the description adds no semantic guidance (e.g., numeric format, leading zeros).
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?
Clearly states a specific lookup action for Romanian CAEN codes, with explicit output (official label + hierarchy). Distinct from sibling tools that 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?
Context is clear: use this to resolve a CAEN code to its label/hierarchy. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are obviously different, so no exclusion needed.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: search, company profile, financial history, status flags, and CAEN code lookup. The slight overlap between profile (latest financials) and financials (history) is resolved by the descriptions.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern (get_*, resolve_*, search_*). The verbs are consistent and the nouns clearly indicate the resource, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a company directory server. Each tool covers a fundamental aspect (search, profile, financials, status, CAEN lookup) without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core needs for looking up Romanian company data: search, profiling, financial history, and legal status. The main gap is that contact details are explicitly excluded from the profile, and there is no dedicated tool for historical status changes, but these are minor and workable.