dealdesk.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 behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing beyond 'Get'. It does not state what happens when the company is not found, whether it is a safe read (though the verb implies it), what scope/permission is needed, or what the response looks like. The projectId scoping caveat lives only in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tight 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 two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin: it never addresses the projectId scoping requirement or the not-found/error behavior. Because there is no output schema, the description arguably owes the reader a hint about what a company record contains, and it offers none.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but companyId has no description there. The description only says lookup is 'by id', which merely confirms companyId's role and adds no format, source, or constraint detail. It does not compensate for the companyId documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a company') and narrows it to a single-entity lookup 'by id', which distinguishes it from a listing sibling like list_companies. It does not, however, distinguish it from lookalikes such as get_company_commercial_summary or add_company_note, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_companies, discover, or get_company_commercial_summary. The only implied usage cue is 'by id', which an agent must infer from the parameter name on its own.

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