GetZeroslide Singapore company register

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 the return fields and the ACRA source, and 'look up' implies a read-only operation, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, rate limits, and what happens for unknown UENs.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the return-field detail follows efficiently.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields (name, status, type, registration date, industry, address, officer count, former names) and names the data source. It is largely complete for a simple single-record lookup, though edge cases like not-found behavior remain unstated.

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% for the single parameter, which already documents the UEN format with an example. The description adds the acronym expansion '(Unique Entity Number)' but no additional syntax or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up one Singapore company by its UEN'. The word 'one' and the UEN key distinguish it from bulk/search siblings like search_companies, though it does not name those alternatives 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?

Implies usage when you already have a UEN and want a single company record, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions. Sibling tools are never mentioned.

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 that the window is bounded by a 'latest data date' (implying data is not real-time) and that only one SSIC filter is allowed, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a result contains.

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 tight sentence with the recency constraint front-loaded and no filler. Slightly compressed to the point of leaving gaps, but structurally sound.

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 3-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two most important concepts (time window, SSIC filter) but omits the limit/pagination parameter and any hint of result shape, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% and the description only addresses two of three params: 'last N days' maps to days and 'one SSIC code' maps to ssic, but neither format nor default/range is given. The limit parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (list) plus resource (companies registered in Singapore) with a clear recency scope, which implicitly separates it from search_companies and lookup_uen. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so it stops 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?

No statement of when to pick this over search_companies or lookup_uen; an agent must infer that this is the 'recent registrations' tool. The 'optionally for one SSIC code' clause hints at a filter but is not usage 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It discloses neither the return format nor pagination behavior, and 'live only' is mentioned without explaining what 'live' means or that it defaults to true. Nothing about permissions, rate limits, or matching behavior for 'former name' is stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the filter list. Every phrase carries information and there is no 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 a read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys scope and filter surface but omits how results come back, how they are ordered or paginated, and what 'live only' actually filters. It is adequate to attempt a call but not to predict its behavior.

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 60%, and the description adds real meaning for the key parameter by clarifying that query matches current OR former names (the schema only says 'Company name or part of it'). It also names the ssic, postal, and live_only filters, but says nothing about limit or about the default/semantics of live_only.

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 with jurisdiction scope: 'Search Singapore companies by current or former name.' This is clearly a search-by-name tool, but it never names or contrasts with its siblings (lookup_uen, new_companies), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 lists optional filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to reach for lookup_uen (exact UEN lookup) or new_companies instead of a name search, so routing between siblings is left entirely to inference.

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