crehq_company_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by enumerating the specific data returned (location count, vertical, ownership, etc.). It adds caveats like 'where known' for private-equity backing, signaling potential data limitations, though it doesn't address error or access scenarios.

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: the first states the core function and payload, the second reinforces its authoritative nature. Every word earns its place, and the most critical action word 'Get' appears first.

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 one-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description lists the key return elements to set expectations. It could mention not-found behavior or access restrictions, but given the tool's simplicity and the richness of the data list, it is reasonably 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 schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with its origin. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get a single brand's canonical CREHQ profile,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like crehq_companies_search and crehq_companies_list by emphasizing 'single,' 'canonical,' and 'authoritative, de-duplicated source-of-truth.'

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single brand's authoritative profile when the ID is known, especially contrasting with search/list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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