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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the raw Accelo endpoint (GET /api/v0/companies/{id}) and the response envelope shape ({ meta, response }), which is genuinely useful extra context absent from annotations. It stops short of noting error behavior for missing ids or rate limits.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler: purpose first, then the API mapping, then the return shape. Everything is front-loaded and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, this is nearly complete; the return envelope is disclosed even without an output schema. Only the absence of any error/edge-case note (e.g., unknown id) keeps it from a 5.

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% and both parameters (id, fields) are fully documented in the schema, including even the '_ALL' syntax. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Fetch') plus resource ('a single company') with a clarifying gloss that it is a client organization in Accelo. The word 'single' implicitly separates it from the list_companies sibling, and the underlying endpoint is named, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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?

Usage is only implied: a required id plus 'single company' signals a point lookup, not a search. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over list_companies, or when to reach for the 'fields' parameter versus the default payload, so the guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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