run_se_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 a cost model ('5 point per returned record') plus the full field inventory that comes back. It doesn't state read-only semantics, permission requirements, or error behavior for an unknown org number, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb and lookup key, with the returned-field inventory and cost appended. Every clause is informative given the absence of an output schema, though the long field enumeration is dense.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the per-record cost, which is what an agent needs for a single-identifier lookup. Only edge cases (invalid identifier, rate limits, auth) are unaddressed.

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 schema already gives the format example (556012-5790), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the accepted identifier types ('organisation number or registry link'), adding mild reinforcement but no syntax detail beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('Sweden registry (Bolagsverket)') plus the exact lookup keys (organisation number or registry link). The singular 'one company' versus the sibling run_se_companies_search's plural search semantics is clear without opening either schema.

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 'by organisation number or registry link' tells the agent the precondition for calling this tool (you must already hold an identifier), which implicitly routes it away from the search sibling. It never names run_se_companies_search explicitly or states when not to use this, so it falls short of a 5.

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