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 behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the company ID doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'properties' and 'associations' arrays contain, how they filter results, what the response looks like, or error handling. The description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations' which hints at the purpose of the three parameters (companyId, properties, associations), but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they affect the response. It adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 constraints ('by ID with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_search_companies (which searches) and crm_list_objects (which lists), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_companies or crm_get_object. It mentions 'by ID' which implies you need a specific company identifier, but doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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