run_techeu_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact returned content and a billing trait ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits error/not-found handling and permission requirements, keeping it 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 that names the resource, the identifier format, the returned fields, and the cost. No filler sentences.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the principal returned fields, which is enough for an agent to know what it will get. The one-parameter schema is fully covered; only edge-case behavior (errors, missing companies) is undocumented.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'company' field and its UUID/URL format. The description's 'by id or URL' merely echoes what the schema provides, 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') plus the exact payload (description, location, sectors, funding rounds with investors, exit and funding-signal estimates). 'By id or URL' scopes it to a single-entity detail lookup and clearly distinguishes it from the techeu search siblings.

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 id or URL' implies this is a single-record detail lookup rather than a discovery tool, and no techeu companies-search sibling exists to route to. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the techeu investors/rounds/exits siblings, so usage remains implied.

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