lookup_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the input-tolerant behavior ('spaces and missing leading zeros are fine') and the exact set of returned fields. No contradiction with 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 compact, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and leads with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with a declared output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the input format tolerance, and the expected return contents. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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?

The schema provides only a string parameter named 'ico' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that the parameter is the company's IČO and that spaces and missing leading zeros are acceptable. This gives agents the information needed to normalize user input correctly.

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 verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('Czech company profile'), and a precise input ('registration number (IČO)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like validate_ico_number, search_companies, and check_vat_registration, which address different needs.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you have a Czech IČO and want a company profile. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention siblings, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose this tool over the listed siblings.

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