run_pt_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the cost ('15 point per returned record') and the full set of returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements and not-found/error behavior, keeping it from 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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers source, key, return shape, and pricing with no filler. The parenthetical seat breakdown is slightly dense but every element is meaningful, so nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, enumerating the returned fields (name, legal form, seat components, publication count, newest publication) is valuable and largely compensates. Cost per record is covered, but error/not-found behavior and any input-normalization guidance are absent for a lookup tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the example 500697256). The description's 'NIF/NIPC or registry link' essentially restates the schema, adding no format, normalization, or validation detail beyond it.

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 Portugal registry) plus the exact lookup key (NIF/NIPC or registry link) and enumerates the returned fields. This implies a single-record lookup versus the sibling run_pt_companies_search, but it never names that sibling or explicitly draws the line, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you already hold a NIF/NIPC or registry URL. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the run_pt_companies_search alternative, and no note on what to do if you only have a company name.

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