get_organization_beneficial_owners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the operation requires a Premium+ plan and is keyed by KRS number or NIP. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, whether the operation is read-only, or any response-related behavior beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose first, then the identifier semantics, then the plan requirement. No words are wasted.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned, how the organization is identified, and the access requirement. It could add format examples for KRS/NIP, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no meaning for the 'id' parameter. The description compensates by explaining that the id can be a KRS number or NIP, giving the parameter actual semantic meaning. It stops short of specifying exact formats or examples, but for a single-parameter tool this is reasonable.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'get the beneficial owners (CRBR) of an organization'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_organization or get_organization_relations by identifying the exact data it returns.

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 clear context for when to use the tool — when beneficial owners for an organization are needed — and adds the Premium+ plan requirement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous enough to route selection.

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