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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: both ID forms are accepted, companySource indicates which matched, platform presence lives under `profiles`, top-level LinkedIn fields are legacy aliases, and the `watch` key appears when a watch exists. This gives the agent a clear model of the response shape and key behavioral nuances.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: operation, ID scope, response fields, legacy alias caveat, watch key behavior, and fallback guidance. The key scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers accepted inputs, return content, nested key structure, legacy alias warning, conditional watch data, and not-found handling. Nothing critical for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 coverage is only 50%: workspaceId has a description but companyId does not. The description compensates by explaining that companyId can be a shared global ID or an imported workspace-scoped ID, and that workspaceId is only needed for imported companies with a default fallback. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the operation as 'Get a company by ID' and specifies the resource and scope, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like campaignstack_list_companies. It also clarifies the two accepted ID forms (global vs workspace-scoped) and the response's companySource field, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use it (get company by ID) and provides a concrete fallback: 'If the company is not found, use campaignstack_list_companies to find valid company IDs.' It does not exhaustively distinguish it from enrichment-related siblings, but the ID-based retrieval context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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