run_ca_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the per-record cost ('5 point per returned record') and enumerates the payload contents (directors, significant-control individuals, filings, name history), which tells the agent this is a heavyweight single-record fetch. It still omits permission/auth needs and behavior on an unknown corporation number, keeping it short of a 5.

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 verb, resource and lookup key, followed by the returned-field list and cost. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; a small amount of trimming would still be possible.

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 explicit list of returned fields is the right compensation, and the cost note covers a factor an agent must weigh. Missing pieces are minor: how to obtain the identifier in the first place and what happens on a not-found lookup.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the same 'e.g. 426160-7' format example. The description restates the accepted key types but adds no new syntax or validation detail, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get one federal corporation'), the exact registry (Corporations Canada), and the lookup key (corporation number or registry link). The 'one ... by identifier' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling run_ca_companies_search, which is the list/search counterpart.

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 tells the agent what input to supply (corporation number or registry link), which implies when to reach for it, but it never states prerequisites (e.g. 'use run_ca_companies_search first to obtain a corporation number') or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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