read_company_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a read operation (non-destructive) and mentions it returns the document. However, it does not disclose potential error cases, permissions required, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal for a simple read tool.

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, well-formed sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then specifies the parameter and output content. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to get the required version. It does not specify error handling, but completeness is sufficient 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?

The schema already describes the 'version' parameter (integer checkpoint number) with 100% coverage. The description adds context by linking to list_company_versions, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read', the resource 'company version', and the distinguishing detail 'including its document'. It specifies the key parameter 'CHECKPOINT NUMBER' and references the sibling tool 'list_company_versions' for obtaining the version. This distinguishes it from other read_*version tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly tells the agent where the version parameter comes from (list_company_versions), providing clear guidance on how to obtain the required input. However, it does not include explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions compared to alternatives like read_company_published.

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