company_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about cost ('Cost: $0.003 USDC') and service provider ('Service: papertrail'), which helps the agent understand operational aspects. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error conditions, leaving important behavioral traits unspecified.

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 appropriately concise with three short phrases that each add value: the core functionality, cost information, and service provider. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the cost and service details could be better integrated into the main sentence for slightly improved flow.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and adds operational context (cost/service), but lacks parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral details like response format. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps.

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 description provides no information about parameters beyond what the schema already shows. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (company_name, cin, gstin), the description fails to explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they interact. The baseline would be 3 if schema coverage were high, but here it must compensate and doesn't.

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's purpose: 'Lookup Indian company profile and regulatory info from MCA21, GST portal.' It specifies the verb ('Lookup'), resource ('Indian company profile and regulatory info'), and data sources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gst_intelligence' or 'check_compliance', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost and service details, but doesn't indicate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'gst_intelligence' and 'check_compliance' that might overlap, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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