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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load for behavioral disclosure. It mentions billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is a useful contextual detail, but it fails to disclose basic behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only/read/other, the nature of the returned data, potential errors (e.g., what happens if neither id nor name is provided), or rate limits. The description is too thin for a tool that isn't annotated.

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 extremely succinct, at two sentences totaling under 100 characters. It front-loads the core purpose (Get company details) and immediately states the flexible identification method, followed by the billing note. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, no annotations, and only 2 params (which are fully described), the description fails to cover critical aspect: the expected return structure of 'company details' (e.g., does it include name, industry, location, etc.?), the behavior when both id and name are given, and error scenarios when neither is provided. A tool like this could easily return a single company object but with nested data, and the description gives no hint of what to expect.

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 schema already fully describes 'id' and 'name' with examples. The description adds the concept that 'either by ID or name' is acceptable and indicates mutual exclusivity, which goes slightly beyond the schema's separate field descriptions. However, it does not clarify parameter format (e.g., whether both can be provided together) or tie the parameters to potential behaviors (e.g., which takes precedence). Given the complete schema, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves company details by ID or name. The verb 'Get' followed by 'Company Details' and the explicit 'By ID or name' makes the purpose concise and unambiguous. It's easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_api_v1_companies_company_posts which fetch related content.

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 tools description implicitly indicates this is a single-entity lookup endpoint (by ID or name), which contrasts with sibling tools like get_api_v1_search_companies that perform search operations. However, there is no explicit exclusion statement like 'do not use for searching' or pointer to an alternative for broader search needs, which would make it a 5.

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