Get Company

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, the description discloses response size details (~3KB default, ~368KB all fields), field filtering mechanics, and the note about using a batch endpoint internally. This provides practical implementation insights not captured in 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 well-structured with clear sections (Input, Response sizes, Default fields, When to use, Note), front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates essential information in a compact format.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral details (response sizes, field filtering), and practical notes. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explaining default fields and response formats, making it sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies company_id accepts both numeric IDs and full URNs with examples, explains include_fields for optimal response size with an example, and mentions default fields returned. However, it doesn't cover the response_format parameter, leaving a minor 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get company details by ID with field filtering for optimal response size.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('company details'), and key functionality ('field filtering'), distinguishing it from siblings like harmonic_search_companies (search) or harmonic_get_company_connections (connections).

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines under 'When to use:' with three specific scenarios: after harmonic_search_companies, after harmonic_find_similar_companies, or when you have a company ID from another source. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus alternatives, including named sibling tools.

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