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, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the company ID doesn't exist. The mention of 'specific properties and associations' hints at optional filtering but lacks detail on defaults or constraints.

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 purpose ('Get a single company by ID') and adds qualifying details ('with specific properties and associations'). There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., company object structure), error handling, or prerequisites. For a read operation with three parameters, more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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), adding semantic meaning to all three parameters. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., what property names are valid) or usage examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single company by ID', specifying it retrieves 'specific properties and associations'. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_search_companies (search) and crm_batch_read_objects (batch operations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_search_companies (for finding companies without an ID) or crm_batch_read_objects (for multiple companies). It mentions retrieving 'specific properties and associations' but doesn't explain when to include them versus using other tools for associations/properties.

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