zefix_get_company_by_uid

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that the tool returns full company details including EHRAID for follow-up queries, and mentions response format options. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (two short paragraphs) with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence is useful, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, optional format, returns a string), the description covers the essential return content (name, legal form, status, SHAB publications, EHRAID). It could be more complete by mentioning error handling (e.g., if UID not found) but overall sufficient.

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 'Schema description coverage' being 0% (meaning the description's Args section compensates), the description fully explains both parameters: uid format with examples and response_format enum values. This is critical for correct invocation and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool finds a company by its UID and returns full details, including the UID format and its equivalence to the VAT number. It is specific about the resource (company by UID) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zefix_get_company (which likely uses EHRAID) or zefix_search_companies.

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 explains the UID format and what the tool returns, implying it should be used when the user has the UID. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives (e.g., using zefix_get_company for EHRAID-based queries).

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