bokio_company_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need only add context beyond safety. It adds that the result is scoped to the token/companyId pair, but says nothing about authentication requirements or the shape of the response.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the usage scenario second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it says what is returned in broad terms and why to call it. A brief note on what the identity lookup covers (or its failure mode) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the BOKIO_COMPANY_ID default, so the schema carries the load. The description references companyId only as a scoping concept, not adding format or fallback semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (the Bokio company's own details), and enumerates the returned fields (name, organisation number). It is clearly distinguishable from the bookkeeping siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

"Use it to confirm which company the token and companyId point at" gives a concrete triggering situation rather than leaving usage implicit. No exclusion or when-not guidance is given, but there is no similar sibling that would require one.

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