get_enterprise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or what happens if the enterprise does not exist. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name and basic action.

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, short sentence—'Get information for a specific enterprise'—with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, and the key elements (action and object) are front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify the parameter format, the nature of the returned information, or any usage context. An agent would likely need additional schema documentation or an example to invoke it 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?

The schema has one required parameter 'enterprise' with type string and no description. The description does not explain what this parameter should contain (e.g., ID, slug, name) or how it is used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.

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 information for a specific enterprise' uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (enterprise), and the phrase 'specific' indicates it targets one enterprise rather than a list. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_org and get_repository, so no ambiguity exists.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool should be used instead. The only implicit hint is that 'specific enterprise' suggests the caller needs an enterprise identifier.

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