UK Companies House API & Scraper: UK Company Data & B2B Leads

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the Apify pay-per-result billing model with concrete prices (run start $0.003, company $0.004, contacts $0.025). It still does not disclose pagination or result-volume limits for a tool that can return 10,000+ items, but the cost transparency is a real addition.

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?

One dense sentence covering data scope followed by a short pricing sentence; the core scope is front-loaded and there is little filler. Slightly compressed phrasing, but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (profile, registered office, officers, and optionally website/emails/phones). For an all-optional 8-parameter search that is largely complete; only return-volume/pagination behavior and the relationship to the new-companies sibling are unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents location, sicCodes, statuses, findContacts, etc. The description only restates the same fields at a high level (SIC code, town, incorporation date, optional website/emails/phones) without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('search') plus resource ('UK companies from Companies House') and explicit filter dimensions (SIC code, town, incorporation date) and returned fields (profile, registered office, officers, contacts). This clearly separates it from siblings such as search_french_companies and find_new_companies_without_website.

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 implies its use case (bulk B2B lead generation by SIC/location/age) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it point to the related sibling find_new_companies_without_website for the 'new company' scenario. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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