get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return values, without mentioning any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the formatting could be more integrated (e.g., as a single paragraph). Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on sibling differentiation and behavioral traits, which are needed for optimal agent use. The output schema reduces the burden, but gaps remain in usage and transparency.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('ip') and specifies it as 'IP address to lookup', which provides basic meaning beyond the schema's type ('string'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate—e.g., no format details (IPv4 vs. IPv6) or validation rules. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get company information for an IP address.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('company information'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_ip_org' or 'get_ip_info', which might provide overlapping or related data. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as 'get_ip_org' or 'get_ip_info'. It lacks context on use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone, which is insufficient given the crowded namespace of IP-related tools.

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