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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The added 'Copper REST: GET /companies/{id}' line gives useful provenance for an agent reasoning about errors or auth, but nothing about 404/not-found behavior or the returned record shape.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials. The absence of an output schema means the agent gets no signal about the returned company shape, which is the only notable remaining gap.

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 there is a single required 'id' parameter already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints such as whether the id is the numeric Copper record id.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single company by id'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_lead/get_person/get_opportunity tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from copper_search_companies, which an agent could easily confuse with a by-id fetch.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, copper_search_companies. The description never states that this requires a known numeric id, which is the key selection condition between the two.

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