get_company_structure

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals key behavioral traits: the output is a table with full addresses, the tool works with either UID type, it fetches up to 50 branches, and performance may be slow due to per-branch API calls. This adds substantial operational context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary operational details without redundancy, making every sentence meaningful.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with moderate complexity: it covers input semantics, output format (table with addresses), branch limit, and performance characteristics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not needed, and the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the uid format with concrete examples and listing the allowed language values (de, fr, it, en). This gives practical guidance beyond the bare schema properties.

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 tool retrieves the corporate structure (head office and branches) of a Swiss company, with specific behavior for head office or branch UIDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_by_uid by focusing on the full organizational hierarchy.

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 the use case: when you need the full structure with addresses, not just a single company record. It states that both head office and branch UIDs are accepted, clarifying when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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