get_company_by_uid

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

The description adds useful input format flexibility (accepts various UID formats) and language options, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or output structure. Annotations already indicate read-only safety, so the bar is lower; this scores as adequate but not outstanding.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, an explanatory note about UID, and an Args section. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence serves a purpose, especially given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 lookup tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameters, input formats, and language. It does not explain return values, but the output schema presumably does. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though could mention when to prefer sibling tools.

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 compensate. It fully explains both parameters: uid (with examples of accepted formats) and language (with allowed values de, fr, it, en). This goes well beyond the schema's simple type definitions.

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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a Swiss company by its UID number,' which distinguishes it from siblings like get_company_by_chid and search_companies. The specificity of UID-based lookup makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 use when you have a UID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks a clear 'use search_companies if you don't have a UID' or similar guidance, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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