Find Company by Integration Identifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds only 'Operation class: Read' and scenario context, which is redundant or non-behavioral. It does not disclose error handling or multiple-match behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and operation class. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With moderate complexity, a fully described schema, and safe-read annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a key alternative. It could mention not-found or ambiguity behavior, and the response_format parameter partially addresses output, so it is reasonably complete.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or further semantics beyond the schema, but no additional compensation is needed given the complete schema.

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 resolves a company from a connected integration to its Hudu company record, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from hudu_list_companies by explicitly naming the alternative for name-based lookup.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when arriving from another system with that system's customer id, and directs name-based lookups to hudu_list_companies with search. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a direct alternative.

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