crm_get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the company ID doesn't exist. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'single company', 'by ID', 'specific properties and associations') earns its place by conveying 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?

For a read operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter mapping. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, authentication, and doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured documentation. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' (mapping to companyId), 'specific properties' (mapping to properties array), and 'associations' (mapping to associations array). This provides basic semantic meaning for all three parameters, but doesn't explain format details, optionality, or the enum values for associations.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('a single company'), and key parameters ('by ID with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_search_companies (which searches multiple companies) and crm_list_objects (which lists objects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from crm_get_object, which might be a more generic version.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_companies or crm_get_object. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific company by ID, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with other get/read tools in the CRM domain.

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