Company snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that missing sections are returned as 404-filled rather than absent, that signals are facts and not a rating, and that an empty signal list means 'nothing found' rather than 'company is sound'. It also tells the agent to check sections_included before drawing conclusions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives a concrete usage direction, and finishes with necessary interpretive caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 composite tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers content, alternatives, edge-case behavior (404s, empty signals), and interpretation guidance. The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return fields in detail, and nothing critical for correct usage is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including company_number format and the verbose flag's payload-size tradeoff. The description adds no significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource — aggregating everything about one company — and enumerates what is included (profile, serving officers, outstanding charges, insolvency cases, signals). It explicitly differentiates this tool from siblings by positioning it as the single-call alternative to four separate get_* tools.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: replace four separate calls (get_company, get_officers, get_charges, get_insolvency) with this one for a single company. It also sets expectations about round-trip cost and 404-filling behavior, which helps an agent choose it over siblings.

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