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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is low. It adds the returned field categories (name, address, contact data), which is useful because there is no output schema, but says nothing about permissions, error cases, or whether a null result is possible.

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?

One front-loaded sentence gives the resource, scope, and returned fields, followed by a short API mapping. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 zero-parameter read with readOnlyHint and a stated payload, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. The only omission is what happens when the account has no company attached, which is minor for this shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly refrains from inventing arguments and instead pins the target to the authenticated account.

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 ("Get the company") scoped to "the signed-in account" and enumerates the payload (name, address, contact data). The "signed-in account" scoping implicitly separates it from craftboxx_get_customer, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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: fetch the caller's own company rather than a customer record. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to craftboxx_get_customer / craftboxx_list_customers for other company data.

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