Hae yritystiedot (PRH / YTJ)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data source (PRH/YTJ) and the exact returned fields (name, business ID, company form, registration date, status), which is valuable beyond the 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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the action and source; the second states the input format and output fields. It is front-loaded and every word 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 simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, how to provide the input, and what the response contains. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'hakusana', which already explains the accepted formats (Y-tunnus or company name/part). The description essentially repeats the same input guidance, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Hakee' (fetches) and the resource 'suomalaisen yrityksen perustiedot PRH:n avoimesta YTJ-rajapinnasta' (basic info of a Finnish company from PRH's open YTJ interface). It also lists the exact output fields and input options, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like hae_hankintailmoitus or hae_saa.

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 provides clear context: it is for fetching company basic info, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like hae_kaupparekisteri_muutokset_prh. Since the tool's scope is obvious from the name and description, this is only a minor gap.

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