Get full company details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: for 8-digit collisions, the API picks the active SK match first, and it recommends an alternative for deterministic disambiguation. It also enumerates the expected return fields. It doesn't mention authorization or error handling, but for a fetch operation this is substantial.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and comprehensive data list; the second sentence provides essential usage guidance. Despite being dense, every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies exactly what data the response contains, explains the edge-case collision behavior, and provides sibling alternatives for disambiguation. The agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes the ico parameter's format (6-8 digits, leading zeros optional) with 100% coverage. The description adds extra semantic meaning by explaining the collision behavior and referencing the parameter's role (by IČO), which goes beyond the schema's basic format specification.

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 'Fetch' and the resource 'full company profile by IČO', listing specific data categories (identity, address, NACE, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'lookup_company' by noting it is identity-only, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: it positions this as richer than lookup_company and directs users to lookup_company with explicit country for deterministic disambiguation of SK↔CZ collisions. This clearly states when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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