get_company_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. 'Return' signals a read-only operation, and the description names the returned information. However, it does not disclose behavior when no active company is available, any authentication/connection requirements, or the exact meaning of 'server info.'

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every word adds meaningful detail about the returned company-related information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally viable: it lists the main output categories and implies the current/active context. However, without an output schema, more detail about 'server info' and explicit usage context would make the tool fully unambiguous.

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 zero parameters and the schema already reflects that completely. With a 0-parameter baseline, the description does not need to document parameters and appropriately focuses on what information the tool returns.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('active SAP B1 company database name, namespace, and server info'), so an agent can identify what the tool provides. It is distinguishable from most sibling get_* tools because none of them target company database/server info, though it does not explicitly contrast with switch_company.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that the 'active' company is the current context, but it does not state when to call this, what prerequisites exist, or that a sibling like switch_company should be used for changing the active company.

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