get_company_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'full details' includes. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 one sentence, front-loaded, with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and parameter context.

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 the tool's simplicity (get by ID) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is minimal. It lacks any edge-case or error behavior, but for a basic retrieval it may be sufficient. However, it doesn't mention return format or any other context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does say 'by ID' which aligns with the parameter, but it does not add any format constraints, requiredness, or examples beyond what the schema already shows. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not enriching.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full company details') keyed by ID. It is clearly distinct from the siblings (jobs-related), so an agent can immediately identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are about jobs)Skip the clear differentiation, there is no explicit statement of when this tool is appropriate or what it is not for.

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