get_branch_offices_by_company_number

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral characteristics beyond 'get'. There is no mention of pagination, return format, error handling, or side effects, and annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden but provides minimal 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?

The description is a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse, omitting useful context that could fit without verbosity.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., whether it's a single branch office or a list). It does not mention pagination or expected results, leaving a significant gap for an agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that business_accounting_no is the identifier. According to guidelines, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and description adds marginal value.

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 'Get', the specific resource 'branch office records', and the criteria 'by company unified business number', effectively differentiating it from sibling tools that retrieve other entity types like directors or registrations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither specifies prerequisites nor contrasts with sibling tools like get_company_directors_by_number.

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