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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of the returned payload (relations, custom fields, remarks), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens for a missing/invalid id. The trailing 'Teamleader: companies.info' is an API mapping note rather than behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the returned fields, plus a short API reference. Every clause earns its place; the API-name suffix is marginal but harmless.

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 compensates by listing what the response contains, which is the key missing information for a getter. Auth/permission requirements and not-found behavior are the remaining gaps, but for a one-parameter read tool it is largely complete.

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?

Only one parameter (company_id) with 100% schema description coverage including a UUID regex pattern, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one company') and enumerates what 'in full' returns (addresses, VAT, responsible user, related contacts, tags, custom fields, remarks). It distinguishes itself from teamleader_list_companies by emphasizing a single company, though it never names that sibling 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 by 'Fetch one company in full' -- an agent can infer this is the detail lookup after a list operation -- but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over teamleader_list_companies or the create/update siblings, and no prerequisites or error conditions are stated.

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