finland_get_company

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the FI prefix auto-removal behavior and clarifies what data is returned in summary vs. full modes. While annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent characteristics, the description provides specific implementation details that help the agent understand how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently cover identifier handling, default behavior, and parameter effect. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, good annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the key operational details (identifier format, data modes) while relying on structured fields for safety characteristics and return format documentation.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (only 'business_id' has a description), the description compensates well by explaining the 'full' parameter's effect on returned data. It clarifies that 'full=true' returns complete data with previous names and registry entries, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare boolean schema definition.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get company by Y-tunnus' with specific details about identifier format and data returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying Finnish companies and Y-tunnus format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other Finnish tools like 'finland_search_companies'.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'Y-tunnus' format and the 'full' parameter option, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'finland_search_companies' or other country-specific company lookup tools. It provides some guidance on parameter usage but not tool selection.

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