Get company by ID

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as error handling, return format, or effects of the optional 'with' parameter. Since it adds no extra transparency, the score is low despite annotations lowering the bar.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose clearly and efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description doesn't need to be extensive. However, it omits key details: what the return value looks like, behavior when the company is not found, and the purpose of the 'with' parameter. These gaps make it minimally adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'id' is used to identify the company, but it completely ignores the optional 'with' parameter, leaving its purpose and effect undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 'Get a single company by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('company') with a clear qualifier ('by ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling list/create/update operations (e.g., kommo_companies_list, kommo_companies_create) and matches the tool name and title precisely.

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 implies usage: call this when you need one company identified by its ID. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives like kommo_companies_list or kommo_companies_get (for other entities). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions exist, but the context is clear enough for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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