get_company

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds one useful behavioral detail — that with_openings=True attaches current job openings — but says nothing about what the default response contains or what the full parameter changes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and parameter guidance, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose or parameter behavior.

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 three parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers company_id sourcing and with_openings but fails to explain the 'full' parameter or what the returned company profile actually includes.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains company_id's source and the effect of with_openings=True, but completely omits the third parameter 'full', leaving a significant semantic 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 names the specific resource (公司簡介/company profile) and states what the tool returns, distinguishing it clearly from job-focused siblings like get_job and search_jobs. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any alternative tool.

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?

It tells the agent where the required company_id comes from (搜尋結果或 get_job), which is useful prerequisite context. But it provides no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not mention any alternative tools or conditions for choosing this tool.

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