get_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the coverage restriction (SC/NI/OC prefixes unsupported), which is a real behavioral constraint, but says nothing about read-only nature, credit/cost consumption (a 'usage' sibling hints at metering), or latency for such a data-heavy response.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences: what you get, how to identify the company, and the coverage caveat. The enumerated payload earns its length because no output schema exists to communicate return values.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of describing return contents and input format, and flags the geographic limitation. What is missing is minor: no mention of cost/credits per call, and no fallback guidance when the company is outside England & Wales.

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 0%, so the parameter is completely undocumented in structured form; the description compensates by specifying the 8-character Companies House format and giving a concrete example (04466987), plus the prefix restriction. Strong for a single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full credit profile of a UK company') and enumerates the concrete payload: R-Score, risk band, five years of financials, filings, charges, CCJs, directors, alerts, exposure, and narrative. This also implicitly distinguishes it from get_risk_narrative (a subset) and search_companies (the finder).

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is a single-company profile lookup given a company number, and it excludes non-England & Wales entities. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_risk_narrative or that search_companies should be used first to obtain a number.

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