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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of error cases, return payload contents, or what happens when no id is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It conveys action, resource, source system, and lookup key efficiently.

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, low-complexity tool with no required parameters and fully described schema fields, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what fields the returned 'company info' contains, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both id and company already described meaningfully (id defaults to the connected company; company selects which connection). The description adds little beyond 'by Id,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company info') and scopes it precisely as 'a single company info ... by Id.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_company_infos (which lists/searches) and update_company_info (which mutates).

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 'by Id' phrasing implies this tool is for fetching one known company rather than searching, but it never explicitly names alternatives or conditions—such as when to prefer search_company_infos or how to handle the default company. Usage guidance is only implied, not stated.

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