Kooperativa: enrich company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states 'Returns 404 if not indexed yet' and frames the operation as a read-only lookup, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when multiple identifiers are supplied despite the 'exactly one' instruction.

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 front-loaded sentences cover output scope, input constraints, and error behavior with no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the returned profile fields, the accepted identifier types, and the failure mode. It could mention response shape or side effects, but for a lookup tool whose returned fields are listed, this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the mutual-exclusion rule 'Provide exactly one of linkedin_url, username, company_id, or id' and by noting the 404 outcome for unmatched identifiers, neither of which the JSON schema enforces.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('a company's full profile') and enumerates concrete data fields (headcount, follower count, founding year, HQ address, industries, specialities, office locations). This clearly distinguishes it from search/check siblings and explains what 'enrich' means operationally.

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 implies usage: when an agent already has one of the four identifiers and needs a complete company profile, use this tool. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to alternatives such as kooperativa_search_companies or kooperativa_check_company for finding/verifying companies.

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