run_ge_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the cost model ('5 point per returned record'), which is real information an agent planner needs, and 'Get' implies a safe read. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the code is invalid/not found.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the operation, the source registry, the key, and the returned fields, followed by a short cost clause. Minor awkwardness in the fragment '5 point per returned record' costs a point but nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (name, status, legal form) and the pricing, which is enough to call it correctly. With no annotations and no output schema, a little more on failure modes and registry coverage would round it out.

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 single parameter is fully documented there, including the alternative 'registry URL' form. The description only repeats 'identification code' and omits the URL option, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('Get one company from the Georgia registry (NAPR)') plus the lookup key ('by identification code') and the returned fields. The singular 'one company ... by identification code' implicitly separates it from the sibling run_ge_companies_search, but the description never names or references that alternative, 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent gathers that it needs an identification code or registry URL in hand to call this. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on what to do if only a company name is known (i.e. use run_ge_companies_search first), and no exclusions.

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