brc_get_company_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses read-only nature and lists settings, but lacks details on potential side effects, permissions, error handling, or return format. Adequate but not thorough.

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: first enumerates what is retrieved, second clarifies read-only nature and where changes are made. Efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose and usage context. Minor gap: 'raw' is undefined, and differentiation from similar siblings is absent.

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 (companyName) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 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?

Description states it gets raw BRC company processing/options settings and lists included items (nominal ledger, VAT options, ageing). Clear verb+resource, but sibling tools like brc_get_company_processing_settings exist which may overlap, reducing differentiation.

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 notes it is read-only and changes must be made elsewhere, implying correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like brc_get_company_processing_settings or brc_get_company_reference_settings.

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