run_cz_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 substantial work: it enumerates the return payload (name, status, registration date, address, court file, legal form, business scope, share capital, officers, shareholders, branches) and discloses cost ('5 point per returned record'). It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the cost and return disclosure are meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and source before the return enumeration. The long list of returned fields is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the call yields.

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 correctly takes responsibility for describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly. Combined with the cost note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only auth/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents the single 'company' parameter with an example (e.g. 45274649). The description adds only minor detail ('8 digits'), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Czech Republic commercial register. 'Get one company' implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_cz_companies_search, but that sibling is never named 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?

The description gives input identification (IČO or registry URL) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not route to run_cz_companies_search or run_cz_company_filings when a company name is known instead of an ID. Usage is left to inference.

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