autotask_get_company_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if IDs are invalid), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values. For a simple retrieval tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating that parameters are needed to retrieve the note, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific company note'), specifying it requires company ID and note ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_company_notes' by focusing on retrieval of a single note rather than searching multiple notes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get tools (e.g., 'autotask_get_project_note'), so it's not fully differentiated.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'autotask_search_company_notes' for single-note retrieval or clarify prerequisites like needing valid IDs. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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