Company, financial years and locked period

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

The annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world nature of the tool, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned data fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response format.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and then giving a clear call-to-action. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned data (name, org number, address, VAT number, financial years, locked period) and provides orientation guidance. Nothing essential 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description cannot and need not add parameter semantics beyond what the empty 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 resource and its contents (company identity, financial years, locked period), but it does not use a specific verb or explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_financial_years tool.

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 instruction 'Call this first to orient' provides clear usage context, but it does not specify when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings for specific data needs.

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