unanet_get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' and gives no information about return format, permissions, side effects, error behavior, or whether the response includes contacts.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the action. It is appropriately brief for the tool's apparent simplicity, though it omits useful detail that would make it more helpful.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'detailed information' includes and how the includeContacts parameter affects results. It leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 schema describes companyId but includeContacts is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the incomplete schema documentation, despite the schema coverage being only 50%.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('company'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on projects, timesheets, and invoices. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat generic and does not specify what fields or scope are included.

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 when to use the tool (when company details are needed) based on the resource name, but it provides no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to other tools.

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