tally_get_company_features

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the inference-based nature of the flags, warns about potential false negatives ('a company could have a feature enabled but not yet used it'), and includes a security warning about text fields not being instructions. It also 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?

The description is longer than average but well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to use, how it is determined, returns, and warnings. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 that no output schema is provided, the description explains the return format ('one entry per feature with a boolean and the evidence supporting it') and the interpretation caveat. It covers why the tool works this way, what to expect, and safety warnings, making it complete for the agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'company' parameter, including behavior when omitted and error handling. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents it thoroughly, meeting the baseline.

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: 'Report which TallyPrime features this company has switched on, inferred from the data it actually holds.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on financial statements, ledgers, or vouchers.

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?

There is an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating this tool helps determine whether a line of questioning is possible, with concrete examples like inventory, GST, and bill-wise tracking. It does not name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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