read_company

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads the current draft and version, and that there is one company per tenant. No hidden side effects, but could explicitly state it's non-destructive. Still clear enough for a read operation.

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 sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action, then provides crucial context. Every word 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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately covers the return information (draft and version). Could mention more details about the document structure, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient. Completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.

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?

No parameters in schema (100% coverage). Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (draft and version) and its purpose, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' and resource 'company document' clearly stated. Uniquely distinguishes from siblings by noting 'one company per tenant — no id' and the purpose of retrieving draft and version for optimistic locking.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Read it before you update, to get the version for optimistic locking.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and why, eliminating ambiguity.

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