run_hr_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' signals a read operation, and it usefully discloses both the returned data set and the cost ('5 point per returned record'), which the schema never states. However, it says nothing about behavior on a non-matching or malformed identifier (error vs. empty), which matters for a single-identifier lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, registry, and identifier types, and the pricing note is compact at the end. The long enumeration of return fields is informative rather than filler, though it makes the single sentence sprawl.

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?

There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (name, status, capital, members, representatives, financial reports) is genuinely necessary and present, as is the cost. Only the no-match/error behavior is missing, which is a modest gap for a one-parameter lookup.

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 parameter already documents the accepted formats and gives an example ('010006549'). The description restates the same three identifier types, adding no new syntax, format authority, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 Croatia registry (Sudski registar)') and enumerates the returned data fields. The singular 'one company ... by MBS, OIB or registry link' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling run_hr_companies_search, which takes query terms rather than a single identifier.

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 identifier-based input ('by MBS, OIB or registry link') implies this is a lookup tool rather than a query tool, but the description never names run_hr_companies_search as the alternative for finding a company by name or otherwise states when to prefer one over the other. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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