crm_get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the company ID doesn't exist. The mention of 'specific properties and associations' hints at selective retrieval but lacks details on default behavior or limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key parameters without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and parameter roles.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining parameter purposes. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or pagination. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'companyId' identifies the company, 'properties' specifies which properties to retrieve, and 'associations' indicates related entities like contacts, deals, or tickets. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or constraints for 'properties' array items.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single company by ID', specifying it retrieves 'specific properties and associations'. It distinguishes from siblings like crm_search_companies (search vs get by ID) and crm_batch_read_objects (batch vs single). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with crm_get_object which might serve a similar purpose for generic objects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific company by ID, but doesn't mention when to choose this over crm_get_object, crm_search_companies, or crm_batch_read_objects. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are stated.

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