run_lv_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 add real value by disclosing the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and enumerating the returned data fields in the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 verb, resource, and country registry before the field list; the cost sentence is a separate, useful clause. The middle field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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-record lookup with one required identifier and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information by naming the fields returned, plus pricing. It is nearly complete, with only error/auth behavior left unstated.

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 parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted formats and gives an example. The description's 'registration number or registry URL' largely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precisely scoped resource: one Latvia registry company, identified by registration number or registry URL. The singular 'one company' combined with an identifier input clearly separates it from the sibling run_lv_companies_search, which takes query terms.

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 the phrase 'by registration number or registry URL', which tells the agent what input shape is expected, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of run_lv_companies_search or run_lv_company_filings as alternatives.

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