get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses '[tier: readonly-owner]' which communicates read-only behavior and owner-scoped access. However, it doesn't describe the return shape, whether 'settings' includes mutation-related fields that might be read-sensitive, or any rate-limit considerations. The tier tag adds some transparency but is minimal.

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, zero waste. It packs the resource, the HTTP method mapping, and the access tier into a compact, front-loaded format. Every element 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only tool, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the resource and access tier. It could note the return format (business info structure) slightly more, but given the low complexity of a parameterless company-info getter, this is largely sufficient.

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 100% schema coverage (empty), so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns ('business info and settings'), making it clear there are no inputs needed — the tool operates on the authenticated company context.

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'), resource ('the connected company's business info and settings'), and the HTTP mapping (GET /company). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which all target specific sub-resources like customers, jobs, invoices, etc.

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 implies usage context ('connected company') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With no sibling tool targeting company-level info, it's somewhat self-evident, but the description doesn't articulate when to pick this vs alternatives or note any auth or setup prerequisites.

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