run_sk_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose meaningful behavioral facts — the 10-point cost per returned record and that 'full history' is included in the payload. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the IČO is not found, which matters for a paid single-record lookup.

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 sentences, zero waste: the identity/scope sentence is front-loaded, the returned fields are listed inline, and the cost note is a short trailing clause. Nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration (name, status, registration date, address, legal form, activities, board, history) usefully substitutes for it, and the cost disclosure sets expectations. Only the failure-mode behavior (invalid IČO, company not found) 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% for the single 'company' parameter, so the schema already documents IČO/URL input with an example. The description's 'by IČO or registry URL' merely restates the schema, adding no format or validation detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.

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), a single-resource scope (one company), names the source register (Obchodný register SR), and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from the plural sibling run_sk_companies_search 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?

Usage is implied by 'Get one company ... by IČO or registry URL', which tells the agent this is a lookup-by-identifier tool rather than a search tool. However, it never explicitly names run_sk_companies_search as the alternative when no identifier is known, nor mentions run_sk_company_filings for filing documents.

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