housecallpro_get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the untrusted third-party authorship of the returned text and the instruction to treat it as data, a meaningful disclosure for an open-world read. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens when the org is unknown.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter provenance and the trust warning. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it flags the trust boundary. For a simple one-parameter lookup this is nearly complete; only edge cases such as missing/unresolvable organizations are unaddressed.

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 parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that the id comes from an estimate's organization_id essentially restates what the schema already says, adding little new semantic detail.

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 (look up) and resource (the contractor/company behind an estimate) and enumerates the returned fields (phone, email, website, address, arrival window). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_estimate, get_invoice, and approve/decline_estimate.

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?

It gives the entry condition and provenance for the argument ('Takes the organization_id from an estimate'), which tells the agent it is used in tandem with estimate retrieval. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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