resolve_gstin_to_company

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

The description clearly discloses that the match is probabilistic, scored, and returns a confidence band, and explicitly warns against presenting as fact. With no annotations, this is essential and fully covers the tool's behavioral characteristics.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then the caveat, then the instruction. Each sentence adds necessary context, though it is slightly wordy for a simple 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, probabilistic nature, confidence band, and required user-facing caveat. Nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the gstin parameter is fully documented with type, length, and example. The description adds no further parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb (matches) and resource (GSTIN to probable company in MCA registry). It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_mca_company (by company name) and verify_gstin (verification) by focusing on the matching task.

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 context for when to use the tool (matching GSTIN to company) and instructs how to present results (as probable, point to mca.gov.in), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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