Get Company Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'Get' and lists expected return fields, but does not explicitly state that no data is modified or disclose error/authentication behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and zero filler. The first sentence states what it does, the second adds the primary use case. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with two clear optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key returned fields and a practical use case. It lacks any mention of alternative tools for more detailed company data, but none appear in the sibling list, so the description is sufficiently 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%, with both optional boolean parameters fully described. The tool description itself does not mention the parameters, but the schema already provides clear semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic company information from HR Partner'), listing concrete data points (company name, subscription status, expiry, employee counts, timezone). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target employees, applications, or leaves.

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 a clear use case ('validating the API key is connected to the correct company'), which is helpful context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a read-only informational tool.

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