get_company_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: recipe inputs appear only when a validated local catalog exists, and they reflect configured requirements rather than current stock. That kind of conditional-availability disclosure is not derivable from the schema. It stops short of covering error handling or credential behavior.

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 core purpose before the caveat, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries real information about return 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so: the four detail categories plus the conditional recipe-input caveat. Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect signal ('where it sits' hinting at region context, 'normalized to a fraction' clarifying the bonus format) rather than parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one company's details') and enumerates the actual payload (production, location, workforce, production bonus). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts itself with the plausible sibling get_player_companies, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one company's details' versus the list-style siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of when to prefer get_player_companies or region/country tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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