select_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects, state changes, or authentication requirements. It lacks transparency about what 'selecting' a company context does internally or how it affects subsequent operations.

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 concise with two paragraphs and an Args section. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff or unnecessary information.

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 (one parameter, no output schema content visible), the description adequately explains who should use it and what it affects. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values. The description is complete for a selection tool.

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 only parameter, company_id, has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds value by stating that the UUID should come from list_companies, which provides necessary context. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond the schema, partially compensating for the low coverage.

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: to select a company context for subsequent operations. It specifies the verb 'select' and the resource 'company context', and explains that it determines which CRM data, financial accounts, connectors, etc. the user will work with. The tool is distinct from domain-specific tools in the siblings list as a generic context selector.

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 explicitly states that ADMIN and TENANT users must select a company before using domain agents or other company-scoped features. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond implied use with list_companies.

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