housecallpro_get_company

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned fields and the relationship to an estimate, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover failure modes, but for a simple read-only lookup with one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 two compact sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the parameter guidance follows naturally. Every part 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required identifier. No critical information for correct invocation 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 parameter is described clearly in the input schema. The description adds a small clarification about where the value originates, but this largely repeats the schema's own description. This meets the baseline without adding substantial new meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Look up the contractor behind an estimate') and lists the concrete data returned: phone, email, website, address, and arrival window. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling estimate/invoice lookup tools, even without naming them.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have an estimate and need the contractor's company details. It also tells the agent to source the `organization_id` from an estimate. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended situation is strongly implied.

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