Get company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only reveals that the response includes contacts and deals, but says nothing about permissions, data completeness, error behavior, or volume limits for a tool that implicitly expands into related entities.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized, though it could afford a bit more substance given the undocumented parameter.

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 retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, an undocumented required ID, no output schema, and a nested return structure (contacts + deals), the description is too thin. It should explain the identifier, related-entity expansion, and any limits.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the required companyId parameter — not its type, format, uniqueness, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented required param, the description must compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (company), and describes what the response contains (details, contacts, deals). Sibling get_contact and get_deal follow the same get_* pattern, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate why this returns nested contacts/deals versus fetching them separately.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_companies, get_contact, or get_deal. It implies a bulk retrieval but doesn't tell the agent to prefer it over multiple single-entity calls, nor when to avoid it.

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