run_il_companies

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it enumerates the returned fields (Hebrew/English name, status, registration date, address, type, liability, purpose, last annual report year) and discloses the cost ('5 point per returned record'). It omits auth/rate-limit/error behavior, but the return-shape and pricing disclosure is genuinely useful.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with return fields and pricing following. Tight and mostly waste-free, though the pricing sentence reads slightly like a footnote.

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, no-output-schema lookup, the description does the necessary work by listing the fields returned instead of leaving the agent to guess. Missing only the distinction from run_il_companies_search and any failure-mode context, which are minor for this tool shape.

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 is documented with a Hebrew label and example ('520013954'). The description only repeats 'by company number' and adds no format, validation, or ambiguity guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource: 'Get one company from the Israel registry (Corporations Authority) by company number.' The 'one company ... by company number' framing contrasts cleanly with the sibling run_il_companies_search, and it enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell exactly what it does.

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 'by company number' phrasing implies the usage condition (call it when you already have a company number rather than a query string), but it never names run_il_companies_search as the alternative or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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