get_company_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential purpose without fluff.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., company name, address, settings), potential return formats, or any side effects. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since it avoids redundancy and correctly handles the lack 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 action ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about the user's company'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_company_balance' or 'get_company_tax_statistics' by focusing on general company details rather than specific financial or tax data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_company_details', which would have made it a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication context), differentiate from similar tools like 'get_client' for client-specific data, or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for updating details). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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