Lookup company details by name and address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context: the data source (TinComply) and potential errors (INVALID_REQUEST, COMPANY_NAME_REQUIRED, etc.), which enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 succinct (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose and usage context. It efficiently includes sibling tool references and error types without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description explains when to use the tool and what it retrieves, it lacks specifics about the output format or structure. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing what 'detailed company information' includes. For a lookup tool, this is a notable 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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters described in the schema). The description notes that address is optional, but this is already evident from the schema (company_name is required, others not). The description adds no new semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('retrieve detailed company information'), the data source ('TinComply'), and the parameters ('by company name and optional address'). It also distinguishes itself by listing sibling tools for alternative lookups (ein, tin/name match).

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 explicitly states the use case ('port-in flow for entity verification, e.g. before drafting an LOA') and provides alternative tools ('See also port_lookup_ein... and port_verify_tin_name...'), offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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