run_kr_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 decent job: it enumerates the fields returned (name, English name, market, registration numbers, address, industry, etc.) and discloses a cost of "15 point per returned record." It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the return profile and pricing are genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, source, accepted IDs, and returned fields, with cost tacked on efficiently. No filler text.

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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and the cost note sets expectations. It is nearly complete, missing only occasional-use caveats such as error behavior for invalid IDs.

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% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already defines the accepted input. The description restates the identifier types but adds no format syntax or examples beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ("Get one company") and resource ("South Korea registry (DART)"), plus the exact identifiers accepted. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_kr_companies_search by emphasizing a single-company lookup.

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 company" and the accepted identifier formats (corp code, stock code, registry link), which suggests a direct-lookup scenario. However, it never explicitly names run_kr_companies_search as the alternative for finding a company you don't yet have an ID for, 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.