run_pl_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned data set and discloses a concrete cost rule ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid KRS number, authentication, or whether the call is strictly read-only and idempotent.

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 purpose and identifier forms in one sentence, with the cost note appended. The long field enumeration is dense but substitutes for the missing output schema, so it earns its space; only minor trimming would be possible.

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?

With a single required parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the record contents and the points cost, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Missing only error/edge-case behavior for malformed identifiers.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'KRS number or registry URL' with an example. The description restates the same accepted forms without adding format rules, so baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one company from the Poland registry (KRS)') plus the two accepted identifier forms, which cleanly separates it from the many list/aggregate siblings. It stops short of naming run_pl_companies_search, so the singular-vs-search distinction is only implied by 'one company'.

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 of a KRS number or registry link implies the caller must already hold an exact identifier, which implicitly steers name-based lookups to run_pl_companies_search, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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