beel_get_company

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: absent fields mean 'nothing stored, not hidden', and a non-existent or unreachable company answers 403 so existence in another account is never disclosed. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the return contract, then the PATCH-mirroring rationale, then the series exclusion, then the endpoint. Prose is a little long and the trailing 'Read before calling' bullet is vague pointer-only text, but every other sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly: identity, activation state, VeriFactu state, the complete set of PATCH-able fields, and the absence semantics. Nothing needed to call or interpret the response is missing.

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% and the single company_id parameter is already documented in depth (UUID, not NIF, 403 semantics, header plays no part) in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (returns the identity and activation state of a company) and enumerates the returned content (fiscal data, Test/Live switch state, VeriFactu registration). It also carves out what it does NOT return (invoice series, routed to GET /v1/companies/{id}/series), cleanly separating it from beel_list_companies and beel_get_series.

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 frames a key use case — reading back every field PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id} accepts so written values need not be cached — and names the alternative endpoint for series. It does not state when NOT to use it versus beel_list_companies or beel_get_setup_status, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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