get_company_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ('Returns `{ entity, company_details, provenance, note, source }`'), notes data completeness with a specific measurement date and sample size, and flags overdue statuses. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a read-only lookup tool, the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 information-dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and data fields, then usage guidance, return format, and data-quality metric. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, including the comparative metric against get_financials. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete: it lists the data fields, return envelope, usage examples, and data-quality context. It could mention pagination or error behavior, but for a single-id lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential context well.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a description ('Entity id (a UK company).'). The description adds that the id is for a UK company and how to obtain it, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Companies House register details for a UK company by entity id, listing specific data fields (registered address, status, company type, incorporation date, SIC codes, filing/compliance layer). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is the 'best-populated of the UK detail tools' and contrasts with get_financials, making its purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for 'where is X registered / what does it file / is it overdue / what was it called before''. It also tells the agent how to obtain the required id ('Get the id from search_entities or lookup_by_identifier'), and implicitly contrasts with get_financials for financial data, giving clear when-to-use context.

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