Company register (UID)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data source and returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error cases or whether the result is a simple boolean or full record. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the resource, the specific data fields, and the authoritative source. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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, idempotent lookup tool with a high-coverage schema and an output schema present, the description conveys all needed selection and invocation information. The source is named, and annotations cover safety and behavior, leaving no critical gap.

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 parameter description already explains that name_or_uid accepts a company name or UID format. The tool description adds little beyond echoing 'UID' and the general purpose, so it does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('check'), a resource ('whether a company is registered'), and the exact data points returned (UID, legal seat, commercial register, VAT status). It clearly singles out the federal UID register, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_official_info or swiss_place_info.

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 scope is clear: this tool is specifically for checking Swiss company registration via the federal UID register. Although it does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, the domain is narrow and distinct from the other Swiss information tools, so an agent can infer when it should be selected.

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