Get a company

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'). This informs the agent about the access level and idempotent nature, complementing the readOnlyHint annotation without contradiction.

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 extremely concise at two lines, front-loading the purpose and providing critical operation details. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more complete without adding verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, output schema present, clear annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It conveys the basic action and access control, but lacks parameter documentation and usage context, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameter. The only parameter (companyId) is not described, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or format the ID. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get a company', which is a specific verb+resource. It also provides the HTTP method and path, and is distinct from sibling tools like pc_get_companies (list). The title and description align perfectly.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_companies or when not to use it. There is no mention of preconditions or context.

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