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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description simply says 'Create many company signals' without disclosing side effects, rate limits, async behavior, or other consequences. The schema contains rich details, but the description itself contributes no extra transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a single high-value usage tip about templates.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, async mode, webhooks) and the lack of an output schema, the description is quite sparse. However, the input schema is highly detailed and covers most behavioral and parameter information, including async return shapes. The description could be more helpful by hinting at response formats or typical use cases, but it is minimally adequate when combined with the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'domains, questions, or templates' roughly maps to the domains and signals parameters, but this adds little meaning beyond the already comprehensive schema descriptions. It does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema documents.

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 creates many company signals, using the specific verb 'create' and resource 'company signals'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling company_signals-create by emphasizing 'many' and 'batch', and mentions domains, questions, and templates as scope.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating multiple signals at once, distinguishing it from single-create alternatives. It also gives specific guidance to 'use templates for larger standardized batches', which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like company_signals-create or list when-not conditions.

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