Get a company profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns derived flags not provided by Companies House, covers overdue filings and insolvency history, and requires a company number. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the output contents, then adds derived-flag behavior, the use case, and the prerequisite in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description, combined with the detailed input schema, output schema, and annotations, gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and what precondition must be satisfied.

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% and both parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the company_number requirement and the find_company fallback, but does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource ('the registered profile for one UK company') and enumerates the exact fields returned, including derived flags. It also differentiates itself from find_company by explicitly stating that a company number is required.

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 states the intended use case ('verify a company is real and active before relying on it') and gives clear routing guidance: call find_company first if you only have a name. This distinguishes it from the most likely alternative.

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