search_companySearch Polish companies by name (fuzzy match). USE THIS when the user asks to find a Polish company, look up a firm by name, or get its NIP/KRS/REGON. Returns NIP, KRS, city, status and a profile URL. Data from the Polish court (KRS) and statistical (REGON) registers. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-10, default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Company name or part of it |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'fuzzy match', returned fields, and data sources. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and usage. Every sentence adds value—none is wasted. Efficient and clear.
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 rich annotations and complete schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use, returned fields, data sources, and safety. No output schema needed because return fields are listed.
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% with clear descriptions for both 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds return field context but does not enhance parameter semantics further. 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 clearly identifies the verb 'search', the resource 'Polish companies', and specifies 'fuzzy match'. It explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_company' by listing use cases.
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 phrase 'USE THIS when the user asks to find a Polish company, look up a firm by name, or get its NIP/KRS/REGON' provides explicit usage guidance. While it does not list when not to use, the positive scenarios effectively distinguish from sibling tools.
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 serves a distinct purpose: VAT verification, company profile, financials, and name search. No overlaps.
All tools follow consistent verb_noun pattern: check_vat_whitelist, get_company, get_financials, search_company.
4 tools is appropriate for a focused domain of Polish company data; neither too few nor too many.
Covers core operations for accessing Polish company info but lacks some advanced features like detailed financial breakdowns or historical data.