company_info

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

The description implies read-only behavior with 'Muestra' (shows), and no annotations are provided. It could explicitly state no side effects, but the description is clear and consistent for a read-only info tool.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence communicates purpose and content efficiently. Every word adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool returns by listing the fields. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed due to the lack of parameters.

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 tool shows company information of the currently connected company, specifying the included fields (name, user, role, devices, session status). This specific verb+resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools like get_devices or disconnect_company.

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 implies use when company info is needed and indicates the context of a current connection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools, though the tool's simplicity makes such guidance less critical.

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