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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond saying 'List', so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the main filter categories. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the simple list operation, the description is sufficient for a basic understanding. It does not explain pagination or return format, but the schema includes limit/offset and the operation is simple enough that the agent can infer the behavior. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a straightforward list tool.

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 all 8 parameters documented in the schema. The description merely restates the categories of filters (domain, company ID, etc.) without adding any new meaning, so it meets the baseline for 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 clearly states 'List company signal runs' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_signals-get (which likely retrieves a single signal) and company_lists-list (which lists different entities).

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 makes it clear that this tool is for listing signal runs, which is a distinct operation from getting a single run or creating runs. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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