crm_get_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from parameter context.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how to interpret the properties/associations arrays, or provide any error handling context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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 description mentions 'by ID with specific properties and associations,' which hints at the purpose of the companyId, properties, and associations parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't explain what format companyId should be, what properties are available, or what 'associations' means in practice. The description adds some semantic value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 resource ('a single company by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It also specifies 'with specific properties and associations' which adds detail about what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crm_get_object or crm_search_companies, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like crm_get_object, crm_search_companies, or crm_batch_read_objects. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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