Get Company Context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that every sub-list is bounded by limit (default 25, max 100), that no sub-fetch walks the account, that results are never partial, and that a refused credential answers UNAUTHORIZED 401 while other failures preserve their real code. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations do not carry.

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?

Dense but well-ordered: purpose, preference, bounding rule, exclusion, then error semantics. Each sentence carries weight, though the error-handling sentence is long and slightly digressive for a selection-oriented description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers bounds, failure semantics, and routing. For a nested-object tool with a 50%-documented schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 50%. The description reiterates limit's default/max (already in the schema) and adds the useful nuance that the bound applies to every sub-list, but it never addresses the 'expand' option or the meaning of 'id' input. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap, so a baseline 3 is right.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a company plus its bounded context), and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings: 'Preferred over four separate list calls' and 'Not for paging: call hudu_search.' An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when an agent starts work on a company'), when-not ('Not for paging'), and names the alternative ('call hudu_search'). Routing guidance is complete and unambiguous.

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