Tolca

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context beyond that: a shared free daily quota (rate limiting), business-only scope with no personal data (privacy boundary), live source provenance per contact field, and which registries/sanctions lists are consulted. It does not say what happens when no website or registry match is found, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and the return contents before the usage sentence, with no filler. The field enumeration is a long, dense clause, but each item carries information an agent needs to decide relevance.

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 and no required parameters, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned profile fields and their provenance, and it states the cost/quota model and data boundary. What remains thin is failure behavior (no website found, no registry match) and the unexplained 'lang' option.

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 description adds genuine routing meaning by stating that domain is preferred and name is the fallback, going beyond the schema. However it only restates that city and country are 'optional', and the 'lang' parameter (en/fr enum) is unexplained in both the description and the schema, leaving one of five parameters with zero semantics and two with no added depth.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a company's profile') and enumerates the returned data: what it does, industry, services, service area, address, phones/emails with source pages, social links, and official screening across registries and sanctions lists. This makes it clearly broader than the screening-focused siblings (sanctions_check, qc_licence, qc_contractor_check) even though they are not named.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('who a company is, how to contact it, or wants to research a prospect, supplier or partner') and input preference ('domain (preferred) or name'). It stops short of exclusion guidance, e.g. when to route a pure sanctions or licence query to sanctions_check or qc_licence instead of this broader call.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the four sources queried, the 12-month contract window, and that extraction dates accompany the verdict. It does not mention latency, rate limits, or what happens when no source matches.

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, both front-loaded with the key facts (sources first, then when-to-use and inputs). The first sentence is clause-dense, but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description still summarizes the verdict model. Sources, trigger conditions, identifier options and freshness are all covered, which is complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this multi-source lookup.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a disjunction not expressed in the schema (zero required params): the caller must supply neq, licence or name. It does not explain acceptable name-matching fuzziness or the effect of lang, though the schema documents both.

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 (check) plus resource (Québec construction contractor) and enumerates the four data sources and their scope. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling qc_licence by covering RBQ licence plus RENA, MELCCFP penalties and SEAO contracts in one call, and names the verdict values returned.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks whether a Québec contractor, subcontractor or renovation company is licensed, trustworthy or eligible for public contracts') and tells the agent which identifier to supply. It does not state when to prefer the sibling qc_licence over this broader check, so the alternative-route guidance is incomplete.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the result reflects current status ('right now', ACTIVE), which implies a live external lookup rather than a cached record, and enumerates the returned fields including the restriction flag.

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?

Four tight sentences with the core capability, return shape, batch hint, sibling exclusion and parameter guidance front-loaded in that order. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 lookup with an output schema, an alternative sibling and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it answers, what comes back, which identifier to pass, and when to prefer the other 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The closing 'Provide neq, licence or name' adds meaning the schema does not: despite zero required parameters, at least one identifier must be supplied, and any of the three is acceptable. That is useful disambiguation beyond the per-field descriptions, though it does not explain precedence when several are supplied.

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 ('does this Québec business hold an ACTIVE RBQ construction licence right now'), plus the exact return payload. It also names the sibling it is not for (RENA ban / environmental penalties), so an agent can distinguish it from qc_contractor_check without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for live RBQ licence status, use qc_contractor_check for the RENA public-contract ban and environmental penalties. It also flags the batch use case ('good for checking several contractors one after another'), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use context that is otherwise invisible.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return contract (allow/review/block action, 0-100 risk score, matches with list and official reference, list copy dates) and an operational constraint: free but subject to a shared daily quota.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and sources, then usage, scope limits, input format, and quota. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the country format is repeated from the schema and the list enumeration is long.

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 carries the full burden of describing results, and it does so (action, risk score, per-match list and reference, list copy dates). Combined with quota, scope limits, and interpretation guidance for 'review', an agent has everything needed to call and act on it.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates name and optional country in ISO 3166 alpha-2 form, adding no format or behavior detail the schema does not already contain, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Screen a company name against official sanctions lists" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description enumerates the exact sources (US CSL incl. OFAC SDN and Entity List, UK, EU, Canada). The scope limit "Companies only, not individuals" further distinguishes it from any person-screening sibling.

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?

States the triggering situation explicitly ("when the user asks whether a company, supplier, customer or counterparty is sanctioned before doing business with it") and an explicit exclusion (companies only, not individuals). It also tells the agent how to interpret a 'review' outcome, which is the main ambiguity in acting on results.

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