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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that open roles are included inline, which is useful. However, it doesn't state what happens if the handle doesn't exist, whether the company is returned with all fields, or any rate-limit/auth behavior. The description is accurate but minimal.

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 that states the resource, the key, and the notable return detail. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the title.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, so complexity is low. The description covers the core purpose and the inline roles detail. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent might not know error behavior or how this differs from search_companies. It's adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'handle' is the lookup key for the company, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property name. However, it doesn't explain the format of the handle (e.g., slug, ID, URL-encoded name) or provide examples, so the compensation is partial.

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 'One company by handle, with its open roles inline' clearly identifies the resource (company), the lookup key (handle), and the return shape (open roles inline). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_agent, get_job, and get_person by naming the specific resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_companies.

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 implies this is the direct-fetch tool for a single company by handle, while search_companies would be the alternative for querying/filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. search_companies, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when the inline roles are included.

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