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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: partial results are normal, sections may be null for plan or data reasons, compliance requires a Pro plan, financials can be null when no machine-readable accounts exist, verification_status semantics carry over, and only a missing company is an error. This gives a complete null/error handling model.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence earns its place by addressing an operational concern such as credits, nulls, plan restrictions, and 404s. It is dense with actionable guidance rather than filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by specifying what each section contains, how nulls should be reported, how plan restrictions affect results, and what constitutes an actual error. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret responses.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including valid include values, omission behavior, and the profile-always-included rule. The description restates this guidance but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('several views of one UK company in a single request'), and enumerates the five sections. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_company, get_compliance, get_financials, get_psc, and get_directors by framing itself as the batched alternative.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this tool over the five sibling endpoints when multiple views are needed, explaining the benefits: one API call, one credit, one round trip. It also instructs when to pass or omit include, and tells the agent how to distinguish null sections from a genuine 404 missing-company error.

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