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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds some scope context by noting that only a few accepted roles are returned and that company-wide policies do not automatically apply to every role, but it does not disclose return format or evidence behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core read operation stated first. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic, but it is not verbose and does add a cautionary note.

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 tool with three parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves include_evidence unexplained and gives no detail about what 'company identity' or 'accepted roles' actually contain. Annotations mitigate the safety gap but not the semantic gaps.

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 vaguely maps to company_id and roles_limit through 'company identity' and 'a few accepted roles,' but it does not explain roles_limit defaults or maximum, nor does it mention include_evidence at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read company identity and accepted roles. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_companies tool or clarify the ambiguous phrase 'accepted roles.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use get_company versus search_companies or other sibling tools. The policy caveat is not usage guidance; it does not name alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.

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