run_lu_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does useful work: it lists the returned fields, notes that status can be radiée/en faillite, and discloses the '5 point per returned record' cost. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and not-found/error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated read tool.

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-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates return fields and cost in one compact sentence with no filler. Slightly dense with the long field list, but every clause 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration effectively stands in for the missing return-value documentation, and cost is disclosed. Only edge behavior (not-found, invalid ID) is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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%, so the single 'company' parameter, its example B82454, and the accepted RCS-number-or-URL formats are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the accepted formats but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 (Get) and resource (one company from the Luxembourg LBR/RCS registry), and specifies the exact identifiers accepted. The singular 'one company ... by RCS number' clearly separates it from the sibling run_lu_companies_search without needing to name it.

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 'one company ... by RCS number or registry link' framing makes the single-entity, ID-based lookup pattern obvious, contrasting implicitly with the search sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of the top band.

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