Get company profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool returns an enriched profile and lists returned fields, including derived fields like company_age_years and accounts.overdue that are not available from the raw Companies House API. The read-only nature is clear from 'Get', and no contradictory side effects are implied.

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 two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the detailed field list in the second sentence earns its place because it tells the agent exactly what data will be returned and highlights the unique derived fields.

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?

For a simple single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the required input, the company jurisdiction, and the returned profile contents. It does not cover error or not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for a low-complexity lookup tool.

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 schema already documents the parameter thoroughly with pattern, example, and zero-padding instruction. The description only says 'by its Companies House number', adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('enriched profile for a UK company by its Companies House number'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_financials, get_directors, and get_compliance, which target narrower aspects of a company.

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 makes clear that the tool is for retrieving a company profile when the Companies House number is known, and the field list implies when it is useful. However, it does not name any alternatives or exclusions, such as using search_company when the number is unknown, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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