eu-company-mcp-server

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

Discloses data source (GLEIF), coverage scope (2M+ entries), and return fields (LEI, address, register number) beyond empty annotations; omits rate limits.

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?

Well-structured with clear separation between capability description and Args documentation; efficiently front-loaded with no extraneous text.

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 no output schema exists, description adequately covers returned data fields and use cases; sufficient for a simple 3-parameter search 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?

Fully compensates for 0% schema description coverage by documenting all three parameters with examples (e.g., 'Siemens', 'DE') and constraints (1-50 results).

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?

Explicitly states it searches companies by name in the GLEIF database (2M+ entries worldwide), distinguishing it from siblings like company_by_lei and company_by_register.

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?

Specifies use cases (Due Diligence, KYC) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use sibling tools (e.g., company_by_lei) instead.

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