Show Company Office

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and specifies the endpoint. It does not contradict annotations but adds limited behavioral context beyond what is already provided. For a simple read operation, this is adequate.

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 three sentences that cover purpose, usage, and endpoint. It front-loads the key action and required parameters. However, it includes redundant mention of 'Company Settings' and the API endpoint details might be extraneous for an agent. Overall, no significant waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (read-only, full schema coverage, appropriate annotations), the description provides a basic level of completeness. It explains what is returned (JSON object) and what parameters are required. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, error handling, or the effect of the view parameter. With no output schema, more could be added.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description only repeats that id and company_id are required, which is already in the schema. It does not add meaning about the view enum or pagination behavior. Baseline score is appropriate as the schema already 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 that the tool returns information about an Office associated with a Company, using the verb 'Returns information'. It identifies the specific resource (Office/Company Settings) and distinguishes it from other show tools by naming the resource. However, there is slight confusion between 'Office' and 'Company Settings' which arouses ambiguity.

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 says to use this to fetch full details of a specific Company Settings by its identifier and lists required parameters. It provides clear context for usage but does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Among many similar show tools, this one is specific to company offices.

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