run_nl_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 disclose useful behavior: it lists exactly what data comes back (name, status, registration date, address, legal form, establishments) and states the billing model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It does not cover error behavior or whether a bare number vs. URL changes the result, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, both load-bearing: the first front-loads the action, resource, identifier forms, and return fields; the second adds cost. No filler.

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 tool, the description supplies the missing return-value information by enumerating the fields, plus the pricing note. It is complete enough to call correctly; only the precise response shape and failure modes are left implicit.

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 schema already documents the single 'company' parameter with an example ('17001910'). The description restates the accepted forms (KVK number or registry URL) without adding format rules or edge-case handling, 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 (Get one company), the exact resource (Netherlands registry / KVK Handelsregister), the identifier forms accepted (KVK number or registry URL), and enumerates the returned fields. The singular 'one company' cleanly separates it from the run_nl_companies_search sibling.

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 requirement to supply a registration number or registry URL implies this is a direct-identifier lookup rather than a name search, but the description never names run_nl_companies_search as the alternative or states when each should be chosen. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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