get_company_roles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb "Get" strongly implies a read-only operation, and the scope ("for a specific company") adds context. However, it does not explicitly state permission requirements, error behavior, or lack of side effects, which would be expected when annotations are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any unnecessary words. Every word 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?

This is a simple, single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema. The description clearly states that it returns all roles for a company, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It could mention the return type (e.g., an array) or any limitations, but the simplicity and schema coverage make the description almost complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (organizationNumber, described as 9 digits). The description adds only the vague qualifier "specific company," which does not meaningfully enhance the schema's description. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb "Get" and clearly states the resource: "all roles for a specific company." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_role_types (which lists role types) and get_role_representatives (which lists representatives), making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where other role-related tools might be more appropriate. The absence of any usage context means the agent has to infer from the name alone.

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