gateway_company_get_source_of_truth

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and the description aligns by saying 'Return.' It adds the content-coverage context (people/projects/etc.) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output truncation, cost/size limits, or pagination beyond the max_chars parameter.

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 16-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. All six content categories are packed efficiently without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema and readOnly annotation present, the description is minimally sufficient, but it leaves max_chars semantics and the relationship to sibling company tools unexplained. For a single optional parameter and a simple read operation, this is a moderate gap.

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 does not mention 'max_chars' at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's title and default, so the agent must infer truncation behavior from the parameter name alone.

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 ('Return') and resource ('company source-of-truth map') and enumerates the content domains (people, projects, processes, documents, decisions, operations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gateway_company_search and gateway_company_get by the 'source-of-truth' scope, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus gateway_company_get, gateway_company_search, or gateway_company_bootstrap_context. The only usage signal is implied by the name and purpose; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context triggers.

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