Kooperativa: check company exists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cheap/no-full-record behavior and specifies success return fields (id, name, fetched_at) plus the 404 case. It does not mention parameter precedence or side effects, but for a read-only existence check the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The key value proposition (cheap existence check) is front-loaded, and the return/error behavior is stated compactly.

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 four optional parameters and no required fields, the description should clarify that at least one identifier must be supplied and how multiple identifiers are handled. The absence of this guidance, combined with no output schema, leaves a meaningful gap for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters relate or whether one is required, so it stays at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 a specific action (cheaply check whether Kooperativa already holds a company) and a scope (existence check without fetching the full record). It also distinguishes itself from related tools like enrich_company and search_companies by emphasizing the lightweight, existence-only nature.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you only need to verify existence cheaply rather than fetch the full record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clearly implied.

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