Get Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the 404 behavior for missing records vs unrouted paths, and explains that a company is a top-level container. No contradiction, but it does not go deeper into response shapes or error handling.

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 first two sentences are concise and information-dense. The third sentence, 'Operation class: Read.', is redundant given readOnlyHint=true in annotations, so a small deduction. Overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: how to get the id, what a company is, and 404 behavior. It does not describe the return value, but the tool's purpose makes that inference straightforward. It feels complete for selection and basic invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the id type and response_format enum. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema; the note about numeric id and non-guessability is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Fetch one company by its numeric id', which is a specific verb, resource, and identifier. It clearly distinguishes this from hudu_list_companies (list vs fetch by id) and other getter tools by emphasizing the unique id-based access.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use hudu_list_companies first when only a name is known, and explains why: ids are not guessable and 404s are ambiguous. This gives clear decision guidance relative to the alternative tool.

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