get_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic read by revealing a non-obvious edge case: soft-deleted companies return a disabled record instead of a 404, and instructs the agent to check the status field. This is precisely the kind of behavioral gotcha that prevents incorrect handling.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args block, and a focused behavioral note. Every sentence contributes and the critical edge-case note is clearly separated.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields. It covers what the tool does, both parameter semantics, and the one significant behavioral exception (disabled records), making it sufficient for correct invocation and response interpretation.

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 descriptions are absent, but the description compensates by documenting both parameters: company_id is identified as a 'COM...' id and account_id is explained as auto-resolving when omitted. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare types and titles in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for one company.' The singular scope clearly distinguishes it from list_companies and other company operations, so an agent can identify it as the per-record detail lookup.

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?

It provides clear context for usage: when you need full detail for a single company. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as recommending list_companies for multiple companies, but the singular framing makes the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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