get_company

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

The description details the search logic (exact then fuzzy/phonetic) and the two possible outcomes (direct match or suggestions with found: false). Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or authentication needs, but for a read-only lookup this is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers the process and outcomes without extraneous detail.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (company vs. suggestions). However, it could mention the structure of suggestions or the company object to be fully complete.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that the 'name' parameter is the company name and describing how it is used in the matching process. It adds context beyond the schema by mentioning fuzzy and phonetic search.

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 it looks up a company by name and returns the best match or suggestions. It specifies the verb and resource, and the fallback logic helps distinguish it from potentially broader sibling tools like search_company. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when you have a specific company name, but it does not mention when to avoid it or when to use sibling tools like search_company instead.

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