get_company_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond this: it flags that `warnings` must be read first and enumerates what it lists (overdue accounts, insolvency, strike-off proposals, disputed/undeliverable registered office), and discloses 'One upstream request' as a performance characteristic. This contextualizes behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three compact, purpose-built sentences: the first defines scope, the second delivers behavioral guidance (read warnings first, has_charges semantics), and the third is a one-line performance note. No filler, no repetition of annotation data, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values. For a single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers the key operational facts: what fields come back, which field to inspect first, the flag that gates a sibling call, and the upstream cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% and the company_number parameter carries a thorough schema description (format, example, tolerance for spaces/missing zeros, and routing to search_companies). With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail, but none is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Get a company's register entry') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, status, type, incorporation date, SIC codes, previous names, filing deadlines). This specificity lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_filings, list_officers, and search_companies without opening any schemas.

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 references the sibling relationship: `has_charges` tells whether list_charges will find anything, implying when to chain to that tool. Additionally, the parameter description (in schema) routes agents to search_companies when only a name is known. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly frame when-not-to-use scenarios or name exclusions.

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