tally_get_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently: it warns about cost ('most expensive call in the server'), what it does not return, and even a prompt-injection style warning about text fields being data, not instructions. It also clearly states the server is strictly read-only.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, DOES NOT RETURN) and every sentence provides actionable information. It is front-loaded with purpose and earns its length given the tool's complexity and critical usage warnings.

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 complex, expensive tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return values (company name, start date, ledger count, account groups, distinguishingFields vs uniformFields), what it does not return, and how to interpret the field lists—leaving no major gaps for an agent to guess.

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 100% with a clear description of the 'company' parameter including optionality and failure behavior. The tool description itself adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe the loaded company: its details, the size of its chart of accounts, and — importantly — which data fields it actually uses.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ledgers or get_profit_loss by emphasizing field usage analysis.

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 explicitly says 'as the FIRST call when asked to audit, review or explore a company you have not looked at yet' and instructs to 'call it once to orient yourself, then use the narrower tools.' It also notes that different companies enable different features, implying why this tool is necessary before others.

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