run_ee_company_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and lists the returned fields, but it does not explain pagination behavior, permissions or authentication needs, or error handling for missing companies.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the resource and source before listing returned fields and cost. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly stronger with an explicit verb at the start.

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?

For a read-only document lookup tool with a fully described input schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context: source register, single-company scope, returned fields, and cost. It does not cover authentication or error conditions, but the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the notion of a single-company lookup and returned document fields, without elaborating on parameter formats beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as annual reports and documents for one Estonian company from the e-Business Register, which distinguishes it from company-search siblings. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name the specific alternative to use when searching for a company, but the intended purpose is readily apparent.

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 by 'one Estonian company', suggesting the tool should be used when a company identifier is already known, while sibling tools like run_ee_companies_search are presumably for finding companies. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as needing a registration number.

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