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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auth mode ('jwt, scoped') and two concrete failure modes (403 for non-member non-admin, 404 if absent), which is real behavioral value, but it leaves 'scoped' undefined and says nothing about what data comes back or rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first and the failure modes follow compactly.

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?

For a simple single-param read this covers the essentials (identity, auth, error semantics), but with no output schema the description should at least hint at the returned company shape or the meaning of 'scoped'.

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 0% for the single required company_id, and the description adds no format, source, or lookup hint for it. An agent gets no help beyond the parameter name.

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 and resource ('Get one company'), and the phrase 'one company' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_companies. It does not name the alternative explicitly, but the singular scope 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?

The description gives error conditions (403/404) but no guidance on when to call this versus list_companies or global_search, nor any prerequisite about already knowing a company_id. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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