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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, e.g. nothing about what fields are returned or any callback/rate considerations, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front and no padding. The trailing conditional clause is a bit awkward but does not waste much space.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, 'by Id' conflicts slightly with id being optional and defaulting to the connected company, and the tool's relationship to search_company_infos goes unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters (id and company, including the connected-company default and accepted identifier formats) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by Id' and adds no syntax or default information beyond it, which is the baseline when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single company info ... by Id'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not name the closest sibling, search_company_infos, so the agent must infer the relationship itself rather than being told.

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 trailing clause 'when no search or write answer already holds it' implies a fallback-only usage, but it is vague and names no concrete alternative. A stronger version would explicitly say to prefer search_company_infos for lookups and use this only when the Id is already known.

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