Look up a Finnish company in the PRH Trade Register by business ID (Y-tunnus).
Returns company name, status, registered address, company form, registration date.
Args:
business_id: Finnish business ID / Y-tunnus in format '1234567-8'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value by specifying the exact return fields ('company name, status, registered address, company form, registration date'), which gives the agent a clear expectation beyond the annotation's safety hints.
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 concise sentences plus a single parameter explanation. Every sentence provides distinct information: the lookup action, the returned fields, and the parameter format. 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?
For a simple 1-parameter lookup with output schema, annotations, and a clear parameter format, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to provide the input, making it easy for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema provides no description for 'business_id', but the tool description includes an Args section that defines it as 'Finnish business ID / Y-tunnus' and provides the required format '1234567-8'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('Finnish company in the PRH Trade Register'), and a specific key ('business ID (Y-tunnus)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_finnish_companies, which would be used to find companies without a known ID.
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 usage when a business ID is known, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or mention sibling tools. It offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the comparison to be inferred from the parameter requirement.
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 targets a distinct resource (obligations, documents, enforcement, Finnish statutes, CJEU cases) with clear parameter differences. Minor overlap exists between get_obligations and get_canonical_obligations, but descriptions explicitly differentiate them.
All tools consistently use verb_noun patterns: get_ for retrievals, search_ for queries, list_documents, and audit_taxonomy. No mixed casing or inconsistent verb styles are present.
At 26 tools, the surface exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the large number of specialized search/get tools could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The API covers the full regulatory compliance workflow: company profile, obligations, deadlines, documents, enforcement, and multiple legal sources (EU, Finnish, CJEU). Some Finnish/KHO tools return URLs requiring web fetch rather than direct data, which is a minor but by-design gap.