ch_company_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing exactly what data fields are included and by disclosing that responses are enriched with additional fields when the Zefix web API is enabled. It provides meaningful value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 carry all the essential information with no filler. The main scope is front-loaded, the field list is compact but complete, and the conditional Zefix enrichment is stated in a single additional sentence. Every clause 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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It specifies the required input, the source of data, the exact fields the caller can expect, and the optional environment-dependent enrichment. Nothing essential is missing.

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%: the single uid parameter is already documented with format, length, and a pointer to ch_company_search. The description's 'by UID' wording adds no real semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states what the tool returns: the official register profile of one company identified by UID, then enumerates the concrete data fields. The resource and scope are specific, and with the 'by UID' qualifier it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ch_company_search, history, or mentions.

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 description implies the right use case: use it when you already have a company UID and want the official register snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives, and the only pointer to ch_company_search lives in the parameter schema, not in the description itself, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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