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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the read returns (address, phones, website, owner, tags, custom fields), which the annotations do not, though it omits error/not-found behavior.

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, no filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded ahead of the source endpoint. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields. The remaining gap is behavioral detail around missing ids or authentication, which is minor for a simple lookup.

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 the single parameter is fully documented as 'Pipeline CRM company id.' with positivity/large-integer constraints. The description's 'by id' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 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?

'One company by id' states a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (a single company), and the enumerated fields (address, phones, website, owner, tags, custom fields) make the payload concrete. It implicitly separates itself from pipelinecrm_list_companies via 'by id,' though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 'by id' phrasing signals this is the single-record lookup rather than a list operation. There is no statement of when to prefer it over pipelinecrm_list_companies or what happens if the id does not exist, so the agent must infer the routing.

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