CompanyScope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses external data source (OpenCorporates), geographic coverage scope (140+ jurisdictions), and coverage limitations (new/small private companies). Would benefit from mentioning rate limits or error handling behavior.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: functionality+data points first, coverage scope second, usage guidance+limitations third. Zero filler content. Every sentence provides distinct value regarding what, where, and how to use.

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?

No output schema exists, but description compensates by enumerating returned data fields (incorporation date, officers, etc.). Single parameter with 100% schema coverage requires minimal additional context. Could improve by describing response structure (nested vs flat) or pagination behavior.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable semantic guidance beyond schema: specifying 'legal name' requirement and implying formatting needs (Inc/Ltd/GmbH suffixes mentioned in schema context). Elevates understanding of how to populate the parameter.

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?

Specific verb 'Look up' + resource 'corporate registry data' + source 'OpenCorporates'. Lists concrete data points returned (incorporation date, status, jurisdiction, registered address, officers) which distinguishes from siblings like get_company_news (news), get_financials (financials), and lookup_company (generic).

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 input guidance ('Use the company's legal name for best results') and limitation disclosure ('may return no results for very new or small private companies'). Lacks explicit comparison to sibling 'lookup_company' regarding when to prefer registry data over general company lookup.

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