brc_get_company_processing_settings

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses that the settings are read-only in Red and changes must be made in Big Red Cloud. This adds important behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the key behavior is explained.

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?

Three tightly focused sentences: purpose, usage recommendation, and behavioral note. No redundant words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what settings are covered (VAT, cash receipts, etc.). It could optionally describe the return format, but for a 'get' tool with clear sibling differentiation, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (includeRaw, companyName). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses specific verb 'reads' and clearly identifies the resource as 'BRC company processing/options settings'. It lists the affected features (VAT, cash receipts, payment terms, debtor statements, gross price entry, transaction creation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_get_company_options or brc_get_company_reference_settings.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this before VAT-sensitive write workflows where possible', providing clear context for when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context is strong enough for an agent to infer.

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