lookup_mca_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the data source (data.gov.in RoC-wise Company Master Data), refresh cadence (roughly quarterly), and field scope limitations. It does not describe behavior for missing/invalid CINs or the response shape, but these are minor gaps for a simple direct lookup.

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 tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the core lookup behavior and data scope, the second clarifies boundary conditions. No filler words or redundant restatements.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough context: exact lookup by CIN, data scope, source, and refresh frequency. It lacks explicit return/error behavior, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, cin, with a clear description and example (U72900MH2015PTC269555), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond framing 'by CIN' and the data source; it does not provide additional format or validation semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('direct ... lookup') and resource ('company-master by CIN'), and explicitly scopes the data to company master fields only, excluding directors, charges, filings, and financial statements. This makes it easy to distinguish from search_mca_companies and other siblings.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for exact CIN-based company-master lookups and that it will not return directors, charges, filings, or financial statements, so the agent knows when not to use it. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool to use when a CIN is unavailable (search_mca_companies), but the intended use case is strongly implied.

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