fylings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states that it fetches a full record with specific fields, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal transparency beyond the basic function.

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 sentence listing the return fields. It is concise with no wasted words, though the field list could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for readability. Still efficient.

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 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what it returns (full record with listed fields) and how to identify the company. Missing details like data source or call limitations, but adequate for the complexity level.

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%—both parameters ('country' and 'registration_no') are well-described in the schema. The description adds that these are used to fetch the record but does not enhance meaning beyond what the schema already 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 specifies the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'one company's full record', and lists the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_company_procurement' (likely procurement data) and 'search_companies' (search).

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 using this tool when a full record for a specific company is needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_company_procurement' for different data. No exclusions or context for choosing among siblings.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data source (open-contracting) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or behavior when no data is found. Some transparency but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with key action, no wasted words, directly informative.

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, description lists expected return fields (awarding body, title, value, date), giving a reasonable idea of output. Could mention pagination or empty results, but sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool lists government procurement contracts a company has won, specifying the included fields (awarding body, contract title, value, date) and explaining it as a strong signal of company activity, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like get_company and search_companies.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for understanding a company's actual work via procurement data, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the function (screening against specific lists), output type (matches with confidence), and implies a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the action and key details. Every word is necessary with no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it names the lists screened and the nature of the output. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, though it could mention match ordering or threshold details.

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% for the single parameter 'name'. The tool description adds that it screens 'company or person name', which clarifies the parameter's scope beyond the schema's generic description. While helpful, this is minimal additional value, warranting a baseline-adjacent score of 3.

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 action (screen), target (company or person name), specific lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated, UN Security Council), and output (matches with confidence score). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company and search_companies which serve different purposes.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description does not mention contexts where screening is appropriate or when other tools might be better suited.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ranking by quality, return fields (legal name, registration_no, country, status, registry source, total count), and the fact that results come from 18 registries. No contradiction with annotations. Could mention handling of no results or rate limits, but overall informative.

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 pack all essential information: verb, resource, scope, search criteria, ranking, return fields, and a usage recommendation. No fluff, front-loaded with key points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search with 3 params, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, parameters, behavior, return fields, and even advises on next steps. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds that query can be name or registration number and that results are ranked, but this is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. It essentially restates schema info without significant additional meaning.

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?

Description uses specific verb and resource ('Search verified companies across 18 African registries') and distinguishes from sibling get_company by explicitly mentioning it for full records. The scope and ranking criteria are clearly stated.

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?

Provides clear context (search by name or registration number, scope to country) and explicit next-step guidance to use get_company for full records. Does not exclude alternatives like get_company_procurement or screen_sanctions, but context is sufficient for most use cases.

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