companies_get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds the agency-level token requirement, which is genuine behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists, but the addition is narrow and does not discuss deprecated versions or response characteristics.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, and the most relevant info is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple get-by-id operation, though it omits potentially valuable context that could be added without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with one parameter, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and an authentication constraint. However, it does not explain what the response contains, whether the companyId must be a specific format, or how this relates to other company resources. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides no description for companyId (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the parameter at all. While the tool name implies companyId is the identifier of the company to fetch, there is no explicit meaning, format, or scope guidance. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description opens with 'Get Company', a clear verb-resource pair that immediately conveys the operation. It also notes the required token type, adding a useful distinction. However, it does not elaborate on what 'Company' means in this domain, and among many sibling get_* tools it is not explicitly differentiated, so it slightly misses the highest clarity bar.

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?

The description mentions an authentication prerequisite (agency-level token vs. location PIT) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as businesses_get_business or other get endpoints. It does not state the typical use case or any preference rules, leaving selection to inference from the name alone.

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