brc_get_company_reference_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('These settings are read-only in Red') and explains a key behavioral nuance (conditional handling for Quotes Unknown). However, it does not describe return format, error handling, or what happens if settings are missing, which would be beneficial.

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 sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, usage guidance, and a behavioral note with constraints. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and usage well, but lacks detail on the output format since there is no output schema. It doesn't explain what values are returned for each document type or how to interpret the settings. For a read-only settings tool, this is a minor gap; the description is otherwise 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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't elaborate on the includeRaw parameter or how to use it in context. 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Reads BRC reference auto-generation settings' and specifies the exact document types (sales, purchases, quotes, debtors journal, creditors journal). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like brc_get_company_options or brc_get_company_processing_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 to use this tool 'before preparing or creating quotes, invoices, purchases, or other reference-sensitive records.' It also provides a specific conditional: 'If Quotes is Unknown, do not assume auto-generate; ask for a quote reference or user confirmation first.' This offers clear when-to-use guidance and a caution.

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