Hae yritystiedot (PRH / YTJ)

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation and lists returned fields, but it does not explain behavior for no matches, multiple matches, invalid input, or error responses.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the first states the action and source, the second gives input guidance and output summary. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input constraints and expected return fields. It is slightly incomplete regarding multi-result and not-found behavior, but remains adequate for correct invocation in normal cases.

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%, and the schema already documents hakusana with format, examples, and accepted alternatives. The description reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Hakee suomalaisen yrityksen perustiedot PRH:n avoimesta YTJ-rajapinnasta', and lists concrete return fields. It is clearly distinct from the sibling procurement tool hae_julkiset_hankinnat_hilma.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: fetch Finnish company basic data using either Y-tunnus or company name. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool is unrelated, so selection is unambiguous.

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