Get insolvency history

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the notable API quirk: a company with no insolvency history returns a not-found error rather than an empty list. It also states the precondition 'Needs a company number.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral context beyond annotations that helps an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: describing what the tool returns, when to call it, and the error quirk. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description fills the remaining gaps: when to invoke the tool and the unusual not-found error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, documenting both company_number and verbose fully. The description only repeats 'Needs a company number,' so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the exact resource (insolvency cases registered against a company) and the specific data returned (proceeding type, key dates, insolvency practitioners). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_company's has_insolvency_history flag, making the tool's role 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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: after get_company reports has_insolvency_history, or during credit/supplier risk checks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the conditions are clear enough to guide selection.

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