mautic_get_company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without any description text. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the HTTP route — nothing about authentication, what happens for a nonexistent or deleted company id, or whether it returns a wrapper envelope. For a retrieval tool whose annotations are complete, this leaves the description purely restating the operation.

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 very short and front-loaded with the operation, which is good, but the second sentence is largely redundant with the first and neither fragment is a complete, useful sentence. There is no wasted prose, yet the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, so the burden is low and the definition is arguably callable as-is. However, an agent gets no sense of the returned company shape, not-found behavior, or how to obtain a valid company_id, which are the only remaining unknowns for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the single required company_id parameter, so the schema supplies only the type (positive integer or numeric string) with no meaning. The description compensates only implicitly via the "{id}" path placeholder; it never states that company_id is the Mautic company identifier, where to obtain one, or whether the string form is coerced the same way as the integer form.

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?

"Get one company" states a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name; the only added information is that it returns a single record rather than a list. The raw REST endpoint "GET /api/companies/{id}" reinforces single-record lookup by id but says nothing about what a company record contains or how it differs from siblings like mautic_list_companies or mautic_get_contact.

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 when-to-use guidance: no statement that this is the lookup to use when the company id is already known, no pointer to mautic_search_contacts or mautic_list_companies for id discovery, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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