run_bg_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: the cost ('15 point per returned record'), which is material for an agent budgeting calls. It also enumerates the returned data surface. It stops short of stating error behavior, whether missing UICs fail, or any auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and identifier type before the long enumeration. The 18-item field list is dense and unsectioned, but since no output schema exists, that enumeration largely earns its place by communicating the record's shape.

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, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields, and it discloses cost. For a single-parameter lookup it is nearly complete; only the absence of edge-case or sibling-routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by UIC (ЕИК) or registry link' restates the schema rather than adding new meaning about accepted formats or validation.

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: 'Get one company from the Bulgaria registry (Commercial Register)'. The singular 'one company' implicitly separates it from the many *_companies_search siblings, and the country/jurisdiction is unambiguous. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'one company' implies a single-record lookup rather than a search, which gives implied usage. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus run_bg_companies_search, nor any prerequisites (e.g., you must already have a UIC or URL). Guidance is inferable but not spelled out.

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