firmy_ask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool routes to the best company, answers from the company data, and includes contact details, which is useful. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but 'ask' implies a read-oriented, non-destructive action; still, without annotations this leaves some ambiguity.

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 one focused sentence that starts with the verb and core purpose, then gives two illustrative examples, and ends with the key output trait ('with contact'). Every element earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what to provide, how the input is interpreted, what the tool does with it, and what the user gets back (an answer and contact). It does not detail the exact response format, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap. It could be more explicit about any limitations or geographic scope.

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 single parameter `question` is already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by framing it as a 'real-world question' and providing concrete examples that clarify the expected natural-language input. This goes beyond the schema's dry 'Your question or need in natural language'.

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 the tool's action: ask a real-world question to 'AiTop plástev' and receive an answer routed to the best company, with contact information. It is more specific than a mere tautology and distinguishes itself from straightforward search/list siblings by emphasizing natural-language questions and routed answers. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like firmy_search.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it for natural-language real-world questions, with concrete examples. It implies that this is the tool for questions rather than structured searches, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer firmy_search or provide exclusions. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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