crm_get_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a single company by ID') and adds key details ('with specific properties and associations'). There is no wasted language, and it directly addresses what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks critical details: no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), no parameter specifics (e.g., valid 'properties' values), and no output information. This leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by ID' (mapping to 'companyId'), 'specific properties' (hinting at 'properties' array), and 'associations' (mapping to 'associations' array), adding meaningful context for all 3 parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what values 'properties' accepts) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the action ('Get a single company') and specifies the resource ('by ID with specific properties and associations'). It distinguishes this from broader search/list tools like 'crm_search_companies' or 'crm_list_objects' by emphasizing retrieval of a single entity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'crm_get_contact' or 'crm_get_lead' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk retrieval), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'crm_batch_read_objects' for multiple companies or 'crm_search_companies' for filtering. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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