Get full company details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a specific behavioral quirk: 'For SK↔CZ 8-digit collisions the API picks the active SK match first' – useful non-obvious information. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only, but the 'Fetch' verb and output list imply a safe read operation. The disclosed collision behavior goes beyond typical descriptions.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The first sentence front-loads the main action and output scope; the second addresses an important caveat. No filler or redundant wording.

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 no output schema, the description comprehensively lists the categories of data returned (identity, address, NACE, finances, tech signals, security, NIS2, sanctions, credit), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. It also covers the disambiguation context. For a read operation with good parameter schema, this is complete enough for effective 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'country' in disambiguating 8-digit IČO collisions and noting it is required for non-SK/CZ identifiers, complementing the schema's field-level 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?

The description uses a specific verb + resource: 'Fetch the full company profile by IČO' and enumerates exactly what is returned (identity, registered address, NACE, legal form, status, latest financials, tech stock/website/SSL signals, security findings, NIS2 scope, sanctions hits, credit score). It explicitly contrasts with sibling 'lookup_company (which is identity-only)', clearly distinguishing its scope.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating it is 'Richer than lookup_company' and directly advises using 'lookup_company with explicit country for deterministic disambiguation' when SK↔CZ collisions occur. This tells the agent exactly when to prefer which tool, including an alternative for a specific edge case.

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