Get Persons with Significant Control

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies what details are returned (natures of control, nationality, etc.), flags overseas corporate PSC entries as a risk signal, and mentions the explanatory note for PLCs. Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and description complements them without contradiction.

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 concise sentences front-load the key action and results, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema presumably detailing return fields, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's purpose, return data, and a special case.

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 description does not add new meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides (company_number is well-described in the schema). Baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 it fetches Persons with Significant Control (beneficial ownership) for a company, specifying what details are returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like company_officers and company_profile by focusing on beneficial ownership.

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 for retrieving PSC data and mentions a special case for widely-held PLCs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, though the context provides some guidance.

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