Get a company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response includes notes and custom fields, providing behavioral detail beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, and every sentence contributes meaning. It is concise and well-structured without any fluff.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description is fairly complete: it defines the entity, indicates what is included (notes and custom fields), and states when it is useful. The only notable gap is the lack of parameter guidance, but overall it is adequate for the low complexity level.

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 has zero description coverage for the single parameter (company_id), and the tool description does not mention the parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond the name and constraints.

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 title 'Get a company' provides a clear verb and resource, and the description adds that it returns notes and custom fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like freshdesk_get_contact. However, the description itself is more of a definition of a company than an explicit statement of the retrieval action, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Useful for tone and for knowing how much a ticket matters.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, as a perfect 5 would.

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