brc_get_company_setup_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions requirements, or rate limits. The 'get' verb implies a read operation, but transparency is minimal.

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 sentence that states the tool's purpose concisely. There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools for specific sub-configurations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks guidance on when to use this aggregated version versus the specific ones. The listing of included components is helpful.

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 for the single 'companyName' parameter, so the schema already explains it. The tool description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, resulting in no added value.

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 uses 'Gets full BRC company setup configuration' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. It lists included components, but does not differentiate from sibling tools that retrieve specific parts (e.g., brc_get_financial_year).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the specific getters (e.g., brc_get_financial_year, brc_get_company_reference_settings). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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