nl_company_search

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the paid/auth requirement and that a KVK number is returned, but it does not mention pagination, exact vs partial matching, no-result behavior, or whether this is a read-only search, so the behavioral profile is 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?

Three sentences with no fluff: action and result first, GLEIF differentiator second, auth caveat third. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the core search intent and a credentials note, but leaves out practical invocation behavior such as pagination/result shape, handling of multiple or no matches, and how the kvk_number parameter fits. It is adequate for a first pass but not complete for fully reliable invocation.

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 moderate at 71%. The description adds plain-language meaning by listing trade name, city, postal code, and domain as search keys and clarifying the output. It doesn't mention that kvk_number can be used as an input, nor the paging/strict fields, though those are partially documented in the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Find'), a specific resource ('Dutch company in the Handelsregister'), the supported lookup keys (trade name, city, postal code, domain), and the expected output (KVK number). It also differentiates itself from GLEIF-based lookups by noting it covers SMEs that GLEIF misses.

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 provides clear usage context: use this when you need a KVK number for a Dutch SME via Handelsregister fields, and it calls out the paid credential prerequisite. The GLEIF sentence is a weak alternative signal, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this one.

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