brc_get_company_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description does state it is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not cover other aspects like response structure or potential errors.

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?

Description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the action. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient for the amount of information needed.

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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields adequately. However, it lacks detail on the response format or structure, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it gets raw BRC company processing/options settings and lists specific fields. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool brc_get_company_processing_settings, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

Description mentions read-only nature and that changes must be made elsewhere, implying usage context. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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