company_registration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it succeeds: it discloses token requirements, rate-limit context (~50/day, 200/month), behavior when the token is unset or invalid, return format, match limit, and empty-list behavior. This gives the agent a reliable model of tool behavior.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: scope, exclusions, auth setup, arguments, and return contract. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so an agent can quickly extract what it needs.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the exact returned fields, the cap of 5 matches, the empty-list case, and error/setup responses. For a lookup tool with only two parameters and one sibling-group mismatch, nothing material 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameters, and it does: it explains that name is the company name to search, and jurisdiction is optional with concrete examples like 'in' and 'us_de'. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Company registration lookup via OpenCorporates') and immediately scopes it to registration facts only. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from funding/valuation/traction data, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is and is not for.

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 explains when to use it (registration lookup) and when not to use it (funding, valuation, or traction data), noting that no free API exists for those. It also gives setup prerequisites for the required token, which is essential operational guidance.

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