run_nz_company_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('1 point per returned record') and the return fields, which is real added value, but says nothing about pagination interaction between start_page/max_items, auth needs, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the cost note appended. No filler, though the parenthetical '(Companies Register)' is slightly redundant with the name.

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 simple 3-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its cost. It could still clarify how to source the company identifier and how paging relates to max_items, but it is largely complete.

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%, so company, max_items, and start_page are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 resource (documents filed by one New Zealand company on the Companies Register) with the fields returned (date, type, file links). It is clearly distinct from run_nz_companies / run_nz_companies_search, though it does not name those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 phrase 'one New Zealand company' implies you must already have a company identifier, but the description never states that you should obtain it via run_nz_companies first, nor does it name any alternative or exclusion. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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