get_organization_krs_extract

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: it saves the PDF to a downloads directory, returns an absolute path, optionally returns base64 content, and enforces plan requirements. It also mentions an edge case where current extracts return 404 for deregistered organizations. This is strong behavioral transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences cover the core action, plan requirements, side effects, return value, and optional base64 behavior. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains required output behavior, optional inline content, plan tiers, and a relevant failure case. Nothing critical 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 67%, with extract_type and return_base64 already well documented in the schema. The description restates some of this information and adds the fact that the file is always saved to disk, but it does not clarify the id parameter beyond its name/type. The description adds some value but relies heavily on the schema.

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 action ('Download a KRS extract PDF') on a clear resource ('for an organization'). It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_organization_krs_chapter or list_organization_krs_entries by focusing on the downloadable extract artifact.

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?

Provides clear usage context: which extract type requires which plan, and which type works for deregistered organizations. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, so it falls short of a full 5, but the current/full differentiation gives solid practical guidance.

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