company_profile

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool aggregates data from MCA, Tofler, Zauba, OpenCorporates, and the company's own site, which helps the agent calibrate expectations about data provenance and breadth. It does not cover failure modes or freshness, but this is not required given the annotation coverage.

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 a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, then concrete facts in parentheses, then sources at the end. Every element earns its place and there is 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?

The description is enough for an agent to understand the tool's basic purpose and safety profile, especially with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint present. However, it leaves open how to construct the required `context` object, how to distinguish this from sibling profile/overview tools, and what happens when registry data is unavailable, so it is not fully complete for autonomous invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level `context` parameter, and the required `company` field has no schema description. The tool description names the kind of facts retrieved but does not clarify how `company` should be provided (legal name, CIN, or search string) or how optional fields like `sector`, `listed`, and `companyDomain` affect the lookup, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('registry-grade company profile facts') with concrete examples of the data returned (CIN, incorporation date, registered office). It also names the sources searched, which distinguishes it from generic overview or search tools even without explicitly mentioning 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 intended use is implied: an agent can infer this is for authoritative registry-level company facts rather than a narrative overview. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like company_overview or search_company, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routing.

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