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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but 'get CRM company' only restates the operation and adds no behavioral detail about return shape, errors, permissions, or side-effect-free guarantees. It does at least convey that this is a retrieval rather than a mutation, but barely beyond the name.

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?

At four words, it is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness: there is no structured statement of purpose, scope, or constraints. A single bare clause does not earn its place as a useful specification.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a one-clause description leave the agent without information about the return value, error behavior, or whether organization_id scopes the company lookup. The two required parameters are visible in the schema, but the surrounding context is incomplete for a tool call.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the parameter descriptions merely repeat the parameter names ('company_id', 'organization_id'). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning such as the relationship between the two IDs or how they are used.

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 verb 'get' plus resource 'CRM company' clearly specifies a read operation targeting a single company, distinguishing it from siblings like crm_companies_list, create, update, and delete. However, it does not elaborate on what is returned or that lookup is by the two identifiers, so it stops short of a fully rich purpose statement.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives; it does not mention crm_companies_list for bulk retrieval or note prerequisites such as having valid company and organization IDs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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