Finnish company events (PRH Trade Register)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a scope boundary — company-level data only, no person data, representatives or addresses — which is real behavioral context an agent needs before calling. However it says nothing about result volume, whether maxPerEvent caps per event type, pagination, or licensing, which for an unannotated, schema-less-output tool is a meaningful gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the necessary event-type vocabulary, then the scope exclusion. The long enum list earns its place because no schema enum exists; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema and six parameters, the description should also say what a returned event record looks like and how maxPerEvent bounds the response. It covers what the tool returns conceptually and its privacy limits, but leaves the agent guessing about result shape and volume.

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 67% and critically the eventTypes array has no enum, so the description's full list of valid event-type strings (new_company, name_change, liquidation_ended, merger, demerger, etc.) supplies semantics the schema does not. Date-window semantics are implied by 'date window'. location, companyForm and maxPerEvent are left to their schema descriptions.

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 resource (PRH Trade Register events) and scope (registered in a date window), and enumerates the event categories covered. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling prh_watch_companies, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which PRH tool to pick.

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 date-window framing and the 'default yesterday' schema defaults imply a daily register-monitoring use case, but the description never says when to use this versus prh_watch_companies or what to do when no window is supplied. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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