get_company_by_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does reveal that enrichment pulls from an external UID Webservice (useful latency/dependency context), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, failure modes, or what 'detailed' information is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. Slightly terse given the tool's ambiguity relative to siblings, but structurally sound.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the shape of the returned company data and any external-service caveats. It covers the enrichment dependency but leaves the agent without enough to know what it will receive or when this beats its sibling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the uid format and the enrichWithUidData default are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the enrichment option, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get detailed company information) and the data source (Zefix), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_company_details_uid, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the far more obvious alternative get_company_details_uid. The agent is left to guess which of two nearly identically named lookup tools to call.

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