get_company_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed information but doesn't specify what 'detailed' includes (e.g., fields like name, address, revenue), whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves detailed data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., specific fields or data structure), potential side effects, or error scenarios. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'companyId' documented as 'ID of the company to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string IDs) or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Returns') and resource ('detailed information about a specific company'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_companies' (which likely lists multiple companies) or 'get_product_detail' (which focuses on products rather than companies), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_companies' for bulk retrieval or 'get_product_detail' for product-specific details, leaving usage context unclear.

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