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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the non-real-time nature, as_of dates, differing refresh schedules, RON currency, default slimness, and data provenance. This is substantial, honest behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, expansion options second, then caveats and data context. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is quite complete: it covers purpose, fields, optional expansions, data source, currency, and data freshness. The main gaps are ambiguity around what exactly 'activity' and 'headline figures' include, and no mention of behavior for unknown or missing CUIs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains cui as the company identifier and enumerates valid include values: financials, procurement, change_history, peers, same_address. It does not define CUI itself or expand on each include value, but the meaning is largely inferable from context.

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 names a specific resource ('one company by CUI') and the fields returned ('Identity, status, address, activity and headline figures'), with an implied fetch verb. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_financials or get_procurement by presenting an aggregate one-company profile and listing expandable sections.

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?

It clearly states the core use case: retrieving one company by CUI, with a slim default and optional include expansions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_companies or list_companies or explain when to prefer them, but the one-company-by-CUI framing is clear enough for selection.

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