run_si_companies

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 returned fields and the cost ('10 point per returned record'), but omits read-only confirmation phrasing, not-found/error behavior, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 dense sentence front-loads the purpose and identifier, then lists outputs and cost. Efficient with little waste, though the field enumeration makes it long.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, address, tax/VAT, business units), and covers the sole input. Only error/not-found behavior is left 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents both the registration number and registry URL with an example. The description restates the matična številka and registry link forms but adds no new syntax or format guidance 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 (Slovenia registry AJPES PRS) with the exact identifier type (matična številka or registry link) and enumerates returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from run_si_companies_search by specifying single-company retrieval by identifier.

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 registration number or registry link implies this is a lookup tool used once you already have an identifier, contrasted with the sibling run_si_companies_search for discovery. However, it never explicitly names the alternative or states a when-not condition.

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