nv_fetch_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the queued workflow, immediate pending status response, long-polling via get_workflow_result, anti-retry guidance, and detailed pendingReason semantics (queued vs outsideWorkingHours), including how those affect polling behavior. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 long but each sentence contributes necessary information. It is structured logically: purpose first, then workflow behavior, then pending reasons. No fluff or redundancy; the detail is warranted given the tool's asynchronous complexity.

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 no output schema and complex async behavior, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the immediate return payload, how to retrieve results, what not to do (retry while running), and the meaning of pending states. It also covers why no final result is returned directly, leaving nothing about the tool's own behavior unexplained.

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%, so the schema provides full parameter documentation. The description only adds a brief note that employees and decision makers can optionally be retrieved, which is a minor addition beyond the schema's already detailed descriptions. Thus, 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 tool opens a Sales Navigator company page to retrieve basic information, with optional employees and decision makers. The verb 'open' and resource 'company page' are specific, and the mention of the 'nv.openCompanyPage' action distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_company or search_companies.

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 explains the asynchronous workflow and instructs to use get_workflow_result for final results, which is key guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_companies or fetch_company, nor state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions — though the context is clear.

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