igdb_get_company

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state idempotency, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects.

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, concise sentence (13 words) with no fluff. It could benefit from additional structure for clarity, but it is efficient.

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?

Without an output schema and with no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what data the tool returns (e.g., company details, fields), leaving the agent with insufficient context for a 4-parameter tool.

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 adds value by clarifying that company_id 'takes precedence over name', which is not in the schema. However, the other two parameters (client_id, client_secret) lack descriptions, and the schema already covers 50% of parameters.

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'), resource ('game company from IGDB'), and method ('by name or ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like igdb_search_games and igdb_get_game.

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 alternatives (e.g., igdb_search_games for broad searches). No prerequisites (like API credentials) or context on name vs ID usage are mentioned.

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