zefix_get_company

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description supports by stating it retrieves data. The description adds detail about the returned data, which is consistent. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the format mixes paragraphs and bullet points in a single block, which could be better structured for readability.

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 covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return content, and relationship to sibling tools. It lacks error handling or invalid input behavior, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool, it is fairly complete.

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?

Despite the context indicating 0% schema description coverage, the tool description explicitly explains both parameters (ehraid and response_format) in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema. The description compensates well for the low coverage.

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 the tool retrieves full company details from the commercial register using the internal EHRAID. It lists the returned fields (name, UID, legal form, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that the EHRAID comes from zefix_search_companies or zefix_get_company_by_uid.

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 indicates when to use this tool (when you have an EHRAID) and explains that the EHRAID can be obtained from other tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., zefix_get_company_by_uid).

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