run_cy_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: cost ('10 point per returned record'). It also enumerates the data returned (status, registered office, directors/secretaries/partners, filing counters), letting an agent judge whether one call suffices. It omits any note on permissions/auth or rate limits.

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 the action and the lookup mechanism, followed by the returned fields and cost. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; the only mild waste is the density of the field list in a single sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both; listing the returned fields and the per-record cost does most of that work for a single-record lookup. The remaining gap is operational context (auth requirements, error behavior for invalid prefixes), which is not addressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real format information beyond the schema: the valid identifier prefixes (HE, EE, AE, S, BN) and the acceptance of a registry link. This helps an agent construct a valid input rather than only restating the parameter.

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 organisation from the Cyprus registry (Registrar of Companies, DRCOR)') plus the exact lookup key ('by registration number ... or registry link'). The singular 'one organisation' plus the unique-identifier key implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling run_cy_companies_search, which returns sets.

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: the tool only accepts a registration number or registry link, so the agent can infer it needs a unique identifier. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of run_cy_companies_search for name-based lookups, which is the most likely confusion given the large sibling set.

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