run_ee_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 adds genuine value by disclosing the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the returned fields, but says nothing about auth/permission needs, rate limits, or what happens on an unknown registration number.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and output fields first, cost second. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the cost sentence could arguably be separated from the functional description.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: what a single-company lookup returns and what it costs. It is close to sufficient for a one-parameter read tool; only error/not-found 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'company' parameter already documents its accepted formats and an example. The description restates 'registration number or registry URL' without adding syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 (Get), a precisely scoped resource (one company from the Estonia e-Business Register), the input form (registration number or registry URL), and the fields returned. The phrase 'one company' implicitly separates it from the sibling run_ee_companies_search, so an agent can route correctly.

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 input form implies when the tool applies (you already have a reg number or registry URL), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and the search sibling run_ee_companies_search is never named as the alternative for name-based lookups.

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