companies_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the returned content (configuration settings, bank info, sync settings, ANAF token validity), which an agent cannot get from annotations and which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its scope front-loaded before the return-value summary.

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?

A simple read-only single-parameter tool whose annotations and schema are complete; the description sensibly fills the one remaining gap (what is returned) since no output schema exists. Marginally short of 5 only because it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid or unauthorized UUID.

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?

Only parameter is uuid at 100% schema coverage, so per the rubric a baseline of 3 applies, but the description also adds that the UUID identifies a 'specific company' in the context of a multi-company account, giving the identifier a concrete frame of reference.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific company'), plus the lookup key (UUID). This clearly separates it from companies_list and the mutating siblings (companies_update, companies_delete), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you already have a company UUID and need its full record. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer companies_list or a related getter instead.

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