companies_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and lists return content, but doesn't disclose whether the UUID represents the current logged-in company or another accessible company, error cases (missing/expired company), or whether ANAF token validity is fetched live or from cached state. The read-only nature is only inferred, not stated.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and enumerates return contents. Zero wasted words, no repetition of the schema's own parameter documentation.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (1 param, fully documented schema, read-only by nature) and an output of moderate richness. The description adequately covers the core return categories. However, given no annotations and no output schema, the description could add more value by noting behavioral details like live vs. cached data or permission requirements, leaving it at a modest completeness level.

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 100% with a single parameter 'uuid' described as 'Company UUID'. The description adds context on what the returned data contains but does not clarify the UUID format or provenance (e.g., which company namespace the UUID belongs to). With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('detailed information for a specific company'), and the identifier type ('by UUID'). It enumerates what's returned (configuration settings, bank info, sync settings, ANAF token validity status), distinguishing it from companies_list, companies_update, and companies_delete siblings.

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 implies usage when retrieving single-company details by UUID, contrasting with companies_list for lists. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over related get tools or note any exclusions or prerequisites, such as requiring admin/membership context.

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