get_company_by_chid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the CH-ID concept and language options, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or edge cases, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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 concise and well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then a brief explanatory note about CH-ID, and an Args list. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, though the Args section partially duplicates schema information.

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 an output schema present and clear annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the unique identifier and language parameter. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the overall simplicity.

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 schema provides only field names and types, but the description's Args section explains both parameters with real-world examples (e.g., CH27030000714) and lists acceptable language values (de, fr, it, en). This significantly compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Get detailed information about a Swiss company by its CH-ID', which is a specific verb+resource+identifier pattern. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_company_by_uid by explicitly naming the CH-ID as the lookup key.

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 implies usage when a CH-ID is available, and explains that CH-ID is an alternative identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_company_by_uid) or any exclusions, 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.