nl_company_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the paid nature ('PAID') and lists the returned profile contents, implying a safe read-only lookup. It does not mention error behavior or output format, but for a non-mutating data fetch the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three short sentences pack the core function, the key field for trademark work, and the cost flag with no waste. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content and the paid cost. It omits guidance on when to combine it with trademark tools, but that is more a usage-guidance gap than missing operational information.

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% because both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond restating that the profile is keyed by KVK number and does not elaborate on establishment_number. 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 indicates the tool returns a full Handelsregister profile for a KVK number and enumerates the fields (legal name, trade names, legal form, RSIN, addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nl_company_search or nl_company_tree.

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 'For trademark work the trade names are the most important field' provides an implied use case but does not explicitly guide selection among alternatives such as tm_search or nl_company_search. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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