Get company

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the kind of data included, but it does not reveal potential gaps like missing financials or record currency.

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?

One concise sentence with a front-loaded scope and a clear list of record components. There is no redundant wording, and every part of the description contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent away from searching when the SIREN is unknown, but the schema and example make the required input clear.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, siren, including format and an example. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the meaning.

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 identifies the resource: a single company's full registry record, with a concrete scope (identity, head office, directors, latest financials). It implies a lookup-by-identifier tool and is distinct from the sibling search_companies, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 phrase "for one company" implies this is the right tool when an agent already has a specific company identifier and needs the full record rather than a search. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_companies or find_by_person, so guidance is only implied.

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