run_fi_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the returned data set (status, registration date, address, legal form, registrations, tax debt status, Business ID history) and the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, and the read-only nature is only implied by 'Get'.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core verb+resource+key is front-loaded, the returned-field list follows, and the cost note is a compact trailing sentence that earns its place.

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 compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and disclosing the billing cost. It is nearly complete for a single-record lookup, though it could note the read-only nature and any failure mode for an unknown Business ID.

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 is already documented in the schema with the same Business ID/URL detail and example. The description repeats that information rather than adding new semantics such as format normalization, so the baseline 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 ('Get one company from the Finland registry'), names the data source (PRH / YTJ), and enumerates the returned fields. The phrase 'one company' plus the registry source distinguishes it from the sibling run_fi_companies_search, which is the multi-result 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 clearly frames the use case and the accepted input forms ('by Business ID (Y-tunnus) or registry URL'), which is enough context to know when to reach for this single-entity lookup. It does not, however, explicitly name run_fi_companies_search as the alternative for finding a company by name, so routing 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.