run_be_companies

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses cost ('10 point per returned record') and the enumerated return fields, and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only lookup. It does not state auth requirements, rate limits, not-found behavior, or explicitly confirm no side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the source, the key, and the returned fields, followed by a short cost note. Every clause earns its place; the field enumeration is slightly long but is the only place return content is documented.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the response — and it does, enumerating name, status, start date, address, legal form, activities, directors, contact details and establishment units. Combined with the cost disclosure this is nearly complete for a single-record lookup; only auth/error behavior is absent.

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% — the single 'company' parameter is already documented with the same 'Enterprise number or registry URL' wording and an example (0202.239.951). The description restates that meaning without adding format or validation detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch ONE company from the Belgium registry (KBO/BCE), keyed by enterprise number or URL. The 'one company' framing implicitly separates it from the run_be_companies_search sibling, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the input ('by enterprise number or registry URL'), so an agent can infer this is a detail-lookup rather than a discovery tool. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no pointer to run_be_companies_search for name-based discovery, and no prerequisites such as where the identifier comes from.

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