Get Persons with Significant Control

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns specific fields, flags overseas corporate PSC as a risk signal, and provides an explanatory note for widely-held PLCs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact at three sentences, each adding distinct value: main action, return fields, and special cases. No filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It addresses edge cases (risk signal, PLC note) without needing elaboration on output format.

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?

The single parameter 'company_number' is well-described in the schema with format and source info. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description reinforces the parameter's role. The description does not need to add more.

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 fetches Persons with Significant Control for a company, which is a specific resource distinct from siblings like company_profile or company_officers. It specifies the purpose as beneficial ownership and outlines return fields, making it highly clear.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it is the only PSC tool among siblings, there is no guidance on exclusions or when other tools might be preferable. This is adequate but lacks proactive direction.

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