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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that administrators are included (a useful distinction from get_officers) and implies a read-only fetch, but it does not explicitly declare safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects) or mention permissions or rate limits. It covers some behavioral nuance but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the alternative guidance in the second. It uses precise technical terms, but the structure is clear and each sentence adds value. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to get the id, when to use it, and when not to. It references get_company for further detail, covering the full calling context adequately.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It clarifies that `id` is a CUI id from a prior `search` call, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. This is sufficient for an agent to know how to obtain and supply the id, though it could mention the format or origin more explicitly.

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 verb (fetch) and resource (full company document for a CUI id), and explicitly differentiates it from siblings like get_company and get_officers by noting it is identical to get_company without include= and that get_officers lists administrators per source. This makes the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use get_company instead unless you are the ChatGPT Apps SDK connector, which requires this exact name.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the preferred alternative, and even notes the special case for the SDK connector. No ambiguity remains.

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