msp360_get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is transparent. However, the description does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found), return format, or any authorization requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key information—resource, scope, and lookup key—is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is a model of conciseness.

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 simple fetch-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter and no nested objects, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly. Minor omissions like return value shape and failure handling are not critical for this low-complexity case.

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 input schema describes the only parameter ('id') as 'Company ID (GUID)' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 names a specific verb (Get), a clear resource (MSP360 company), and a precise scope (single, by ID). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling msp360_list_companies, which retrieves multiple companies.

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 phrase 'single ... by ID' implies the use case: retrieve one specific company when its ID is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all companies, use msp360_list_companies) or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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