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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds the concrete API route (GET /companies/{companyId}) and the fields returned, but says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or error cases for an id lookup.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: identity/scope first, source endpoint second. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge fitness. Minor gaps remain around error handling, but the core call contract is covered.

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 100% and the single companyId parameter is already documented as a UUID in the schema. The description adds only the notion of keying by id, which is baseline-consistent but not incremental.

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 the return payload enumerated (name, platform, dataConnections, created/lastSync) and the underlying API route given. The word 'single' plus the id requirement clearly separates it from codat_list_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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and 'single company', which suggests the keyed-lookup case versus the bulk listing sibling, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given and codat_list_companies is never named.

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