run_au_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields and discloses the cost model ('Flat 10 points per successful run'), but says nothing about authorization requirements, failure behavior for invalid IDs, or whether results are cached/live.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the output fields and pricing. Compact and free of padding, though the field list and cost note could be tightened.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields (name, status, registration date, address, legal form). The main remaining gap is the absence of guidance on the search sibling and error handling.

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% and the single `company` parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description restates the same accepted formats without adding syntax, formatting, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one company from the Australia registry (ASIC / ABN)') and scopes it to a single record retrieved by registration number or registry URL, which implicitly separates it from the plural run_au_companies_search sibling. It stops short of naming that alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It tells the agent the required identifier (registration number or registry URL), which implies you need a known ID rather than a name, but it never says when to choose this over run_au_companies_search or what to do when you only have a company name. Usage is implied, not spelled out.

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