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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is a 'full' record including contacts and related records, which is useful payload context, but says nothing about permissions, missing-record behavior, or response volume.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The trailing 'GET /companies/{id}/.' is REST implementation detail of marginal value to an agent, though it does confirm the id-scoped lookup pattern.

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 one-parameter read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back at a high level (full record plus contacts and related records). Only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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% with a single well-typed UUID parameter documented as 'Record id (UUID).' The description adds nothing beyond that, which is appropriate at baseline when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One full company record') and implicitly contrasts a single-record fetch with the list counterpart via 'One full'. It doesn't explicitly name cogmento_list_companies as the alternative, so sibling separation is left partly to inference.

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: the tool requires a company_id, so an agent can infer it's for when the id is already known. The mention of contacts and related records hints at why to prefer it over a list call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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