view_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a company' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meaning, usage context, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'company_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what the ID represents, its format, or where to obtain it, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a company in Freshdesk'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'find_company_by_name' or 'list_companies', which also retrieve company information, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'find_company_by_name' and 'list_companies' available, there is no indication of whether this tool is for retrieving a single company by ID, while others might handle searches or listings, leading to potential misuse.

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