get_company_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The name and data fields imply a non-destructive getter, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency beyond the output data.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core output, and then provides practical usage context. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when to use it. The output schema can define the exact return fields, while the description adds the essential 'why' context. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The schema already shows an empty object, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline of 4 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 returns company metadata (name, address, fiscal year) for the connected QuickBooks company, and the tool name 'get_company_info' reinforces the getter action. It is naturally distinct from sibling reporting/search tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides explicit use cases: confirming which company answers refer to and finding the fiscal year start before requesting period reports. It does not mention when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and contextually useful.

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