get_legal_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Read' does signal a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about authentication needs, what happens when the peOrgNr does not exist, or rates/limits — and the 'full' flag's behavioral effect on payload size is left entirely to the schema.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the key parameter front-loaded and zero wasted phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema is fully documented, but with no output schema the description gives no hint of the returned record's shape or that 'full=true' returns every available variable. That is a real gap for an agent deciding what to expect back.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces that peOrgNr is the lookup key. It adds no format or syntax guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one entry from the register) qualified by the lookup key, which cleanly separates it from the plural siblings search_legal_entities and count_legal_entities. The only weakness is that 'the register' is unnamed and the legal-entity framing is carried entirely by the tool name.

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 singular 'one entry by its peOrgNr' implies a single-record lookup versus the search/count siblings, but it never says when to prefer this over search_legal_entities or what to do when the key is unknown. Usage is inferable from the name, not stated.

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