Get Corporation By Number

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Fetch corporation details,' which is generic and fails to mention capabilities like handling multiple corporate numbers, response format options, or historical record retrieval. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While minimal, it is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 tool's four parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain when to use this tool (by corporate number) versus searching by name, the meaning of the responseType and history parameters, or any return value details. The sparse description leaves too much to be inferred.

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 75%, so most parameters are explained there. However, the description itself adds no parameter context, and the corporateNumber parameter lacks a schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('corporation details') from a specific source ('National Tax Agency Corporate Number API'). It is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_corporations_by_name.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool should be used over alternatives, nor does it reference sibling tools. The agent is left to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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