get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little beyond content: no auth/permission requirements, no rate limits, no note on whether a dissolved company's record behaves differently, and no indication of what happens on an unknown number. 'From its official registry record' hints at the data source, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by a compact args block; both sentences of the summary earn their place. The field enumeration slightly duplicates the existing output schema, but the overall size is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the calling essentials (parameter format) are covered, and return structure need not be explained. However, the absence of any when-to-use or sibling-routing guidance leaves a real gap given three related siblings, and the return-field list partly re-describes what the output schema already holds.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well: it specifies the 8-character Companies House number format, gives four representative examples including SC/NI prefixes, and notes that leading zeros are optional. That is exactly the format detail the bare string schema lacks.

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 states a specific resource and scope — the full profile of one UK company from its official registry record — and enumerates the fields returned (status, incorporation date, registered office, SIC codes, officers). This implicitly separates it from the list-oriented search_companies sibling, but it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice such as 'use search_companies to resolve a company number first'. The agent must infer from the name that this is a single-record lookup and that explain_sic_code / get_filing_history exist for adjacent tasks.

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