paperclip_get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds that the endpoint is 'Board-only' and requires board-level auth (error 403), which is beyond what annotations provide. It also lists return fields and common errors, offering comprehensive behavioral insight.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Front-loaded with purpose and warning. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: authentication requirements, parameter details, return fields, usage examples, and error handling. References sibling for list operation, ensuring full context for correct use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples (companyId UUID), clarifies response_format enum values and defaults, and lists all return fields, thus providing meaningful extra context beyond the schema.

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 'Get a single company by UUID', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'paperclip_list_companies' by explicitly stating when not to use and directing to the alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples ('reading a company's budget, status, or branding configuration') and when-not-to-use ('need to list all companies'), with a direct alternative. Also includes error handling guidance for auth and not found scenarios.

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