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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information', but doesn't specify what details are included, whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or error behaviors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a company') and specifies the key parameter. There is no wasted text, and it directly addresses the tool's function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral aspects like what 'detailed information' entails or response format. For a read operation, this leaves gaps that could hinder agent understanding, though the simplicity mitigates severity.

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 the parameter 'universal_name' fully documented in the schema as 'The company's universal name / vanity URL (e.g. 'google')'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, reiterating the parameter type without providing additional context like format constraints or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 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 detailed information') and resource ('about a company'), specifying it uses a 'universal name (vanity URL slug)' for identification. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_companies' by focusing on retrieval of a specific company rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_profile' tools, which target individuals, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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 implies usage by specifying the parameter ('universal name'), suggesting it's for fetching known companies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_companies' or 'sales_search_accounts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the parameter requirement alone.

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