Get company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens when the accountId is unknown (empty result vs error), whether permissions are required, or what the response contains. A single short noun phrase cannot cover any of that.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the entire definition is a fragment with no sentence that conveys actionable 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least sketch the returned company shape or the not-found behavior; it does neither. For a tool surrounded by many company-related siblings, missing differentiation leaves the agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 100% and the accountId property is documented as 'ALSO Cloud Account ID'. The description only echoes the parameter name and contributes no format, range, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 text 'GetCompany — company by accountId' restates the tool name and title and adds only the lookup key, which is already the sole required parameter. It never distinguishes this from close siblings such as get_companies, find_companies, or get_company_by_vat_id, so an agent cannot tell which entity shape or key each one takes.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this single-company lookup versus the plural listers (get_companies) or the alternate-key lookup (get_company_by_vat_id). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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