Get Aircall company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that it concerns the 'authenticated' company and returns 'basic information', which provides some scoping but no additional behavioral details like response format or rate limits. This aligns with the calibration example where a read operation with annotations got a 3.

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 conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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, parameterless read-only operation with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the target resource and scope ('authenticated company') but does not specify the exact fields returned. Given the absence of an output schema, a slightly richer description of the return value would make it fully complete, but it remains adequate for this simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter meanings, and it correctly implies that authentication is handled outside the parameter list.

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 the resource 'basic information about the authenticated Aircall company', which precisely identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aircall_get_user or aircall_get_call by uniquely targeting the company entity.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description—it's for retrieving company-level information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. It is adequate but not thorough.

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