revnuvo_get_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a summary with observation history and freshness, which is useful. However, it does not address auth requirements, side effects, rate limits, or output structure, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, output contents, and usage intent with no filler. The information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns and why an agent would call it. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact shape of the summary response, but the description gives enough orientation for correct use.

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 'domain' parameter with an example, and the description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating that the summary is for a domain. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 clearly identifies the tool as producing a company-level summary and specifies its contents: what is observed, since when, and how fresh. It distinguishes itself from deeper siblings like get_company_state or get_company_changes, though it does not explicitly name them or use a direct verb.

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 phrase 'Use to decide whether deeper calls are worth it' provides explicit context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.