get_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval action ('get'), which implies no side effects, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or any required permissions. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the action itself.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a useful scope clarification. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 simple lookup tool with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the entity and purpose, though the absence of usage guidance and minimal behavioral detail slightly reduces completeness in a context with many sibling tools.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (company_code, lang, type). The description only repeats that company_code is the lookup key, adding no new semantics for lang or type. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Get company information') and the key identifier ('company code'). It also clarifies the domain by noting companies include DIN owners and manufacturers of drug products, distinguishing it from drug-product-specific tools.

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 for company lookups but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. The scope sentence helps differentiate from drug product tools, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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