oahelper_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the output hint 'Returns question refs'. Nothing is said about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, whether the 'refresh' flag triggers a network refetch, or whether the call is read-only versus mutating; the 'Returns question refs' line is also redundant since an output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then identifier examples, then the sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place; only the slightly awkward 'List one OAHelper set page' phrasing costs a point.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, identifier format, and alternative tools adequately. The single real gap is the undocumented 'refresh' semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for slug_or_url by giving two accepted formats (bare slug and full URL). However, the 'refresh' parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque and capping this at a partial-credit 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List one OAHelper set page') and pins down the identifier format with two concrete examples ('kickdrum-mcq24sep', full URL). It also explicitly routes sibling confusion by stating that company-by-name lookups belong to oahelper_search or oahelper_sync, so an agent can differentiate it from its siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternatives (oahelper_search, oahelper_sync) and the condition that selects them ('For a company by name'), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs. It doesn't state the inverse condition as explicitly (use this when you already have a slug or URL) or any exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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