gateway_company_bootstrap_context

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers safety. The description clarifies the nature of the returned data (compact, aggregated from multiple sources) but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, truncation with max_chars, or that it executes multiple underlying queries. It adds some context beyond annotations but lacks behavioral nuance for a composite 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and content components. It is appropriately concise with no filler, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. It gives a high-level overview but does not explain how parameters affect the output, how the composite result is assembled, or any practical usage details. The output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but parameter semantics and tool selection context remain underspecified.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. Parameters like limit, query, max_chars, and include_sources are left entirely to be inferred from names and defaults, which is ambiguous (e.g., limit could refer to result count or length). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clear purpose: 'Return a compact startup context' and enumerates three specific components (source-of-truth map, company memory, relevant company search results). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gateway_company_get_source_of_truth and gateway_company_search by aggregating multiple data sources into one call.

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 usage is for bootstrapping context, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus calling individual tools (e.g., gateway_company_get_source_of_truth, gateway_memory_search). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the intended scenario is only inferred from the name and description.

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