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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload contents (bank, tax, invoicing, X-Lock switch, cancellation policy, member/boat counts), which is context not present in annotations or schema.

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 lead phrase front-loads the resource, and the rest is a dense but purposeful enumeration of return fields. It is a single run-on sentence, which slightly hurts readability, but little is wasted.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does so comprehensively (profile, contact, bank, tax, invoicing, cancellation policy, X-Lock switch, counts). An agent can anticipate the payload shape without guessing.

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% and there is a single parameter whose schema text already explains where company_id comes from, so the description need not compensate. The named fields (cancel_refund_percent, cancel_refund_days) describe return values, not the parameter, so the description adds nothing to parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as the company profile retrieval (a specific resource) and enumerates its contents, making it distinguishable from boat-related siblings like get_boat and get_boat_details. It frames the tool as a noun phrase ('the company profile') rather than stating the verb, but the retrieval action is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_boat_details or update_company, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the read-oriented framing.

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