get_company_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Obtenir' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'informations complètes' indicates a comprehensive return, but it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., required permissions, response format, or whether it can fail). It adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No fluff or 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?

Given the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists key fields that will be returned, which is helpful. However, it could mention potential limitations (e.g., whether 'complete' includes all settings or only basic info) and any required authentication, but these are minor gaps for a simple getter.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it instead adds value by outlining the expected return fields (name, address, SIRET/NINEA, TVA, logo), which partially compensates for the lack of an output 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Obtenir' (get) with a concrete resource ('informations complètes de la société configurée dans Dolibarr') and lists example fields (name, address, SIRET/NINEA, VAT, logo). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_company_info and get_setup_values by focusing on the configured company details.

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 usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description indicates this fetches complete company configuration, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of alternatives like get_setup_values or when not to use it. There is no exclusion guidance, but the purpose is evident 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.